Shraddha,
I do not see how an originator can set any flag regarding the protection
of the locally attached prefix. It's all the routers on the path towards
such prefix that need to deal with the protection. Signaling anything
from the originator seems useless.
thanks,
Peter
On 12/29/14 09:26 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Yes.You are right.
Lets say a prefix sid has a flag "p flag". If this is on it means build a path
and provide protection.
If this is off it means build a path with no protection.
The receivers of the prefix-sid will build forwarding plane based on this flag.
The applications building the paths will either use prefix-sids with p flag on
or off based on the need of the service.
Rgds
Shraddha
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:49 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Shraddha,
the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can not advertise
any data regarding the protection of such prefix, because the prefix is locally
attached.
thanks,
Peter
On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Peter,
If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and while
building such a path if the node-sids Need to be used (one reason
could be label stack compression) , then there has to be unprotected node-sid
that this service can make use of.
Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service
endpoints which makes it even more relevant to have A means of representing
unprotected paths.
Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators.
Rgds
Shraddha
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde;
[email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Shraddha,
node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is directly attached
to it. Protection for such local prefix does not mean much.
thanks,
Peter
On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Authors,
We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the
label is protected or not.
Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to indicate
whether the node-sid is to be protected or not.
Any thoughts on this?
Rgds
Shraddha
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
.
.
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
