Hi all：
I think this draft is a useful topic，However, I think there is still space
for improvement in this solution. According to the solution in the draft, the
size of the context table of each node is the number of neighbors * (the number
of network nodes + the number of neighbors of neighbors). This will cause
scalability problems. If the SRGB difference value is used to calculate the
mapping value from the remote label to the local label directly when
forwarding, it is a recommended method.
Thanks
Zhibo
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 IETF Secretariat
发送时间: 2020年7月30日 20:27
收件人: spring-cha...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org;
draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-pa...@ietf.org
主题: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths in state "Call For Adoption
By WG Issued"
The SPRING WG has placed draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths
in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Bruno Decraene)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths/
Comment:
Call for adoption:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/B6cx72KAeX1gqDhV0SocT5Qlhmw/
IPR poll:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nOPWhT-5IaKVarTGrIGtRCr8zaQ/
_______________________________________________
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
