Wim –
You are confused. ☺
SRGB is a local configuration for a box. There is no relationship between the
SRGB range(s) used on one node and those used on another node. This is why the
SIDs advertised in prefix reachability advertisements (or SRMS) are used as an
“index”. For example, consider t
Bruno -
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:13 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Les,
Thanks for the sum
(Changed the subject a bit)
Here is my proposal as regards the need to update other SR related drafts
regarding handling invalid SRGBs.
1)No need for any change to SR architecture draft.
2) What is already in
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06.txt
Section 3.1
Les,
it seems I missed most of the party… bad luck ;-)
I fully agree with your approach and it looks we getting very close to “rough
consensus” here.
s.
> On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Bruno –
>
> Taking a step back – resummarizing my position:
>
>
It’s a very clear statement and reasonable. I support this.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:06 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: Re: [sprin
