Hi Pushpasis, On 8/3/15, 6:13 AM, "spring on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar" <spring-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of psar...@juniper.net> wrote:
>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. In the simple next-hop case, only the most preferred protocol (lowest admin distance or precedence) route will be installed in the data plane. If I understand correctly, in this case the most preferred protocol would install the NHLFE and a cross-connect. Additionally, other less preferred protocols would install additional cross-connects using different labels. Correct? Thanks, Acee > >Thanks >-Pushpasis >> > >_______________________________________________ >spring mailing list >spring@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
