; Cc: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution
>
> On 5/11/2017 7:30 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
> Specifically, from my POV, if a SR-capable node with SGB base and Node
> SID
> receives a labeled packet with top
Eric C Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:44 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Shraddha Hegde
; draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolut...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution
On 5/12/2017 7:55 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
On 5/12/2017 7:55 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
We are assuming a default behavior of PHP for SR-MPLS. If folks
believe this requires explicit specification I would propose language
similar to the following:
/"When Segment Routing is instantiated over the MPLS data plane the
penultimat
etf-spring-conflict-resolut...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution
On 5/4/2017 2:35 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
When G forwards the packet to A, because A has not advertised the prefix-SID
(but is SR capable) we do not know
On 5/11/2017 7:30 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Specifically, from my POV, if a SR-capable node with SGB base and
Node SID receives a labeled packet with top label , this
label MUST be terminated */regardless of whether the node did or did
not advertise PHP/*.
This seems like it might be
.@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric C Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 5:27 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Shraddha Hegde
; draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolut...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution
On 5/4/2017 2:35 PM, Les Ginsberg
On 5/4/2017 2:35 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
When G forwards the packet to A, because A has not advertised the
prefix-SID (but is SR capable) we do not know whether it wants PHP or
not – so we have to make an assumption.
Default MPLS behavior is to assume PHP.
I'm not sure why you t
Shraddha -
We are still not on the same page.
The text you mention as regards handling SRMS advertisements in the IGP drafts
(e.g. Section 2.4.5.2 in
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-12.txt ) is
discussing how one determines if the advertiser of the prefix is
Les,
The use-case you are describing here is SRMS advertisements and there is no
problem in handling SRMS
advertisements. There is a special indication in the protocol messages to
indicate it is an SRMS advertisement
and it is documented in ISIS and OSPF drafts in detail, how to handle the
scen
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
Les,
The issues we are discussing here are specific to Segment Routing and SPRING is
the right
WG to address this. The problem here is not about standardizing what is the
default
PHP behavior, it is about the scenarios when this default behavior assumption
need to be applied.
The problem doesn
Shraddha -
First, there is no SID conflict here. There is therefore nothing for the
conflict resolution draft to discuss.
Let's look at your scenario more detail. To do so let's use the following
simple topology:
--A
/
G-B
\
C
Using
Les,
>From what you describe in section 3.3.8, all the SIDs attached to prefixes are
>fed into the database.
The example I am talking about,
1.prefix 1.1.1.1 advertised from node A with no SID
2.Prefix 1.1.1.1 advertised from node B with SID 10
3. Prefix 1.1.1.1 advertised from node C with SID 1
Shraddha -
There is a misunderstanding on your part. It would be good if you read Section
3.3.8. Guaranteeing Database Consistency again.
In short, it does not matter whether you do or do not advertise a prefix SID
for a prefix which you own. What matters is that all routers populate the
mapp
Hi Authors,
When there are multiple anycast IP addresses assigned to different nodes and
one or more nodes
do not advertise a Prefix SID for that anycast address but other nodes
advertise a prefix-sid, there is a possibility
of different implementations behaving differently with respect to prog
15 matches
Mail list logo
