Pushpassis -
Conceptually, there are two different functionalities being discussed:
1)Supporting selection of what prefixes are eligible for protection. This is
what Section 5.1 of the draft discusses.
2)For the set of prefixes which are eligible for protection, supporting policy
to choose between multiple LFA candidates. This is discussed in Section 5.2 of
the draft.
How you choose to implement this support is outside the scope of both the draft
and this discussion.
Les
From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:33 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Jeff Tantsura;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
abiloity to limit the set of prefixes m; [email protected]
Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
Hi Les,
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:46 AM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff
Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
[Les:] "backup-selection-policy" specifies which member of an LFA set should be
preferred when there are multiple candidates for protecting a given prefix.
What we are discussing here is controlling which prefixes are eligible for
protection. These ae two different concepts.
[Pushpasis] Well, it is not only preferring. It can also be not-preferring-any
(or pruning). So if no protection for any IPv6 is required, it can be achieved
by a policy as belows:
Destination ipv6-all {
{
Interface all
{
Neighbor exclude all;
}
}
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
