6:37 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; spring@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org list;
Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
Subject: Re: [spring] Conflicting MS entries
Hi Bruno,
Indeed what you are describing would be similar to having tunnels to the same
destination prefix resolv
(Mustapha)
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 6:37 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; spring@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org list;
Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
Subject: Re: [spring] Conflicting MS entries
Hi Bruno,
Indeed what you are describing would be similar to having tunn
e SCE/IBNF; spring@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org list;
> Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Subject: Re: [spring] Conflicting MS entries
>
> Hi Mustapha,
>
> > From: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) [mailto:mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-
> > lucent.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 201
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 9:48 AM
> > To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
> > Cc: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; spring@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org
> > list; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > Subject: Re: [spring] Conflicting MS entries
> >
; isis...@ietf.org list;
> Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Subject: Re: [spring] Conflicting MS entries
>
> Hi Mustapha,
>
> Thanks for the discussion. Please see inline.
>
> > From: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
> > [mailto:mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-> lucent.com
@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > stephane.litkow...@orange.com
> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 5:17 AM
> > To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org list
> > Subject: Re: [spring] Conflicting MS entries
&g
i)
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org list
> Subject: Re: [spring] Conflicting MS entries
>
> Even if choosing any IP to MPLS entry does not break anything, I'm not sure
> this is
> a good idea from an operational point of view to let it undeterministic.
>
>
ne 18, 2015 09:29
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [spring] Conflicting MS entries
Hi Stéphane,
> From: stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015
> 9:23 AM
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
>
Hi Stéphane,
> From: stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:23 AM
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> " 1) I don't really the issue. From a forwarding standpoint, looks like
> we can simply program multiple SIDs in the FIB."
>
> [SLI] What about the IP to MPLS entry ?
[Bruno] If tra
Hi Bruno ,
Agree with you, it is necessary to define a tie-break.
And as described in the draft
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lw-spring-sid-allocation-01,
it has described the tie-breaker between two or more SRMNs by SR
Capabilities Sub-TLV extension
with the Allocation bit set, the tie-
Hi Bruno,
"1) I don't really the issue. From a forwarding standpoint, looks like
we can simply program multiple SIDs in the FIB."
[SLI] What about the IP to MPLS entry ?
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for initiating discussion on this point.
1) I don't feel that this is a IS-IS encoding specific issue, but rather a
SPRING consideration, so I'm adding spring.
Eventually this seems related to
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop
2) From a service provider sta
12 matches
Mail list logo
