Hi Les, On 8/1/15, 4:56 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote:
>What is more problematic is supporting multiple labels for the same >prefix - which is one of the consequences of the per-protocol SRGB >approach. I am not saying this is unsupportable - just that it is a more >difficult problem to solve. [Pushpasis] If we can support multiple protocol routes (each providing an IP next hop) per IP prefix, I don¹t see why there should be problem supporting multiple protocol routes (each providing a labeled next hop) for the same IP prefix. Thanks -Pushpasis > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
