Hi, Just to know, is there some implementation today supporting MT for SPRING ? The other point is : if yes, does someone use it in a live network ? If no, there is no issue to change. I agree that a migration is not easy, but coming back to previous sentence, honestly I think no one use MT SPRING today ... so no migration expected.
For algorithm, AFAIK, no one support multiple algorithm today, so we can do what we want as far as it does not break algo#0 today. Stephane -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 17:40 To: Pushpasis Sarkar; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Uma Chunduri; Eric Rosen; SPRING WG Subject: Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain Hi Pushpasis, On 8/26/15 16:44 , Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: > Hi Les, > > > > > On 8/26/15, 7:45 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Stephane - >> >> Implementations based on the drafts that currently exist advertise a >> topology independent SRGB. A SID which is advertised in a specific MT Prefix >> Reachability advertisement is interpreted as an index into the topology >> independent SRGB. This is NOT compatible with an implementation which is >> written assuming that a SID is an index into a topology specific SRGB. So >> the introduction of topology specific SRGBs would have to be supported >> network-wide before it could be deployed. Sub-TLVs cannot resolve this >> incompatibility. > [Pushpasis] What if we use the current SR-capability sub-TLVs only for single > topology deployments? And use a new MT-SR-Capability SubTLV for MT > deployments? Please note, I am not saying MT cannot be supported with current > SR-Cap SubTLV. It can be, but with the limitation (as I like to see this > cuurently) is that we MUST use separate SID-index for the same prefix in > separate topologies. If operator does not want to live with the limitation > then all the vendor implementations must implement the new MT-SR-Cap SubTLV > and make it happen. If the operator can live with the implementation they > continue with per-topology SID-index and single SRGB for all topology. above would require vendors to implement both options. For operators managing transitions between one option to the other would be difficult. Interoperability with the implementations that only support one option would become problematic. Do we really want to create all this? Does the gain we would get with per topo/algo SRGB justify all this, especially given that the gain is not functional, but rather operational and fairly limited? thanks, Peter > > Thanks > -Pushpasis _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
