Stephane -
I think it is important to look at conflict resolution in the context of the SR
architecture. Much of what you discuss below is inconsistent with the SR
architecture and as a result it creates new problems that actually don't need
to be solved.
Let me see if I can get us back on the
Thank you Loa. New revision addressing all comments, posted.
Thanks!
— Carlos.
On Aug 2, 2017, at 3:40 AM, Loa Andersson mailto:l...@pi.nu>> wrote:
Working Groups,
This working group last call has been closed.
There have been comments, can the authors/editors please update as
necessary and po
Hi,
In the current version of the draft, conflict evaluation does not look at the
SRGB, it only looks at SIDs.
In any case, in the given example, there is a prefix conflict => multiple
SIDs/labels associated to a single prefix.
>From an LFIB point of view, as per the current draft, only a singl
Hi,
N, N1 and N2
advertise SRGB [1000,2000] in OSPF and SRGB [2000,3000] in
ISIS.
IMHO, there is no real conflict as both SRGB are disjoint, so why
not proving both entries in LFIB?
Dirk
Op 2/08/2017 om 10:08 schreef
stephane
No it's not, it's definitely not enough precise.
Telling that you include all the entries (from all protocols) in the conflict
resolution does not mean that cross protocol info may be used when programming
the FIB. That's a different story.
And speaking as an operator, from a troubleshooting po
Working Groups,
This working group last call has been closed.
There have been comments, can the authors/editors please update as
necessary and post a new version.
/Loa
On 2017-07-11 11:35, Loa Andersson wrote:
Working Groups,
This is to initiate a two week MPLS working group last call in on
