Hi Eric,
On 11/18/15, 10:55 AM, "Eric C Rosen" wrote:
>Hi Acee,
>
>> However, it still may be simpler operationally to advertise a Global
>> Prefix-SID for a locally attached subnet comprised of nodes offering
>> a particular service.
>
>I don't think I suggested anything that would prevent o
Hi Acee,
However, it still may be simpler operationally to advertise a Global
Prefix-SID for a locally attached subnet comprised of nodes offering
a particular service.
I don't think I suggested anything that would prevent one from
advertising a domain-wide prefix-SID for a locally attached
Hi Eric,
On 11/17/15, 12:15 PM, "Eric C Rosen" wrote:
>On 11/17/2015 10:31 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>> to me it makes sense to advertise the SRGB along with ANY prefix
>> originated by that node, regardless the mask-length.
>
>But in that case, you don't know who the originator nod
On 11/17/2015 10:31 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
to me it makes sense to advertise the SRGB along with ANY prefix
originated by that node, regardless the mask-length.
But in that case, you don't know who the originator node is. Could you
explain to me how you use an SRGB when you don
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>
> [Eric] Do you have an example in mind where it is useful to advertise
> an Originator SRGB when the prefix in the NLRI is not a host
> address?
>
> [Stefano] in fact I don’t have any good example where a /32 (/128) must be
> enforced…
>
>
[Eric] Do you have an example in mind where it is useful to advertise
an Originator SRGB when the prefix in the NLRI is not a host
address?
[Stefano] in fact I don’t have any good example where a /32 (/128) must be
enforced…
Well, that's not the question I asked ;-)
Given that the SRGB is a pro
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 3:44 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>
> On 11/10/2015 3:00 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> I agree the predominant use case will be advertisement of a loopback.
>> However, independent of whether or not the Originator-SRGB TLV is
>> included, I see no reason why a BGP Speaker cou
On 11/10/2015 3:00 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
I agree the predominant use case will be advertisement of a loopback.
However, independent of whether or not the Originator-SRGB TLV is
included, I see no reason why a BGP Speaker could not associate a
label-index with a locally attached subnet.
On Nov 9, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2015 8:18 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>> A prefix may have a shorter mask than 32 (or 128) and still be ok for
>> the Originator SRGB to be there.
>
> Stefano,
>
> On further thought, I wonder if I misunderstood the point of
Hi Eric,
On 11/9/15, 10:22 AM, "spring on behalf of Eric C Rosen"
wrote:
>Hi Stefano,
>
>>>If a BGP route is received that contains a Prefix-SID attribute
>>>with an
>>>Originator SRGB TLV, but the prefix field of the NLRI does not
>>>contain a
>>>host address, the attribute SHOULD
On 11/6/2015 8:18 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
A prefix may have a shorter mask than 32 (or 128) and still be ok for
the Originator SRGB to be there.
Stefano,
On further thought, I wonder if I misunderstood the point of your
question. If all the addresses falling under a given prefi
Hi Stefano,
If a BGP route is received that contains a Prefix-SID attribute with an
Originator SRGB TLV, but the prefix field of the NLRI does not contain a
host address, the attribute SHOULD be regarded as malformed. If a
Prefix-SID attribute contains more than one SRGB TLV, it SHOU
Hi Eric,
the proposed text looks good but with one question below.
On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:16 PM, Eric C Rosen
mailto:ero...@juniper.net>> wrote:
I'd like to make some suggestions for textual changes to sections 3.1 and
4.3 of draft-ietf-idr-prefix-sid. The main purpose of these suggestions is
Hi Eric,
sorry for coming back late to you. I’ll go through our suggestions asap.
Thanks.
s.
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:16 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
>
> I'd like to make some suggestions for textual changes to sections 3.1 and
> 4.3 of draft-ietf-idr-prefix-sid. The main purpose of these sugges
14 matches
Mail list logo
