> On May 5, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On 04/05/2017 21:20, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
>> On 5/2/17, 12:57 PM, "Stewart Bryant" wrote:
>>
>> Stewart:
>>
>> Hi! How are you?
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed review!
>>
>>> A significant part of the justification seems t
And to add one observation ..
Stewart makes a point that SR-MPLS can be deployed without mpls control
plane.
Well it sure does not require LDP however IGP or BGP extensions for SR-MPLS
signalling is also an example of mpls control plane ... even if much
simpler than traditional cases it is still
> On May 5, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> Alternatively maybe it would be better to have a single use case: Operators
> that wish to deploy SR without an MPLS control plane,
I’d agree with the above. Let’s simplify the document with, at the end, what is
the simplest and most e
On 04/05/2017 21:20, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
On 5/2/17, 12:57 PM, "Stewart Bryant" wrote:
Stewart:
Hi! How are you?
Thanks for the detailed review!
A significant part of the justification seems to evolve around the
inability of MPLS to function in an IPv6 only network.
It seems to
Shraddha -
I say again - there is no conflict and there is no config error.
Let's use another example which does NOT involve anycast.
--A (1.1.1.1)
/
G-B (1.1.1.2)
\
C(1.1.1.3)
NO SIDS are locally configured on any routers because the
