Thanks for the responses. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) < sprev...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 28, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > - pg 5, line 1 > > What is the criteria that allow sharing the AS number? Is there a > reference? > > > we changed this to “use the same AS”. As explained in 4.3, using the same > AS brings the update loop prevention mechanism so facilitate filtering and > propagation. > > I think your response is about the spine/leaf nodes. My comment is about the ToR nodes. > > > - pg 7 > > "local label 1600x" -> "local label (16000 + x). > > Also because of the way loopbacks are assigned, does this mean that > the number nodes that this scheme can handle is 512? May be good to > mention why this is considered a good number. > > > the example assumes loopbacks assigned from 192.0.2/24. It gives you 255 > host addresses. This is of course just illustrative. > It may be good to mention explicitly that the numbers used are illustrative. I did not get that impression when reading the draft. > > > > - pg 11 > > "BGP Prefix Segment 16011 then directs the packet down to Node11 along > the path (Node5, Node9, Node11)." > > I think it would be worth mentioning that node 9 need not appear in > this path. In general, because of the nature of clos topologies, there is > no need to have intermediate nodes between the spine and the ToR on the way > down. (If there is, it would be good to know why.) > > > maybe I’m missing your point but the example is baed on the illustrative > topology where 9 in the shortest path but you don’t need to specify 9 in > the segment list. This is base of SR explained in the architecture draft. > > Yes, that is indeed my point. I think it would be better to remove it and have a statement that says why it doesn't appear pointing to the arch doc. Thanks, Anoop
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
