Hi Robert, Currently, everything in draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis is pretty much backward compatible with our more than a decade old RFC 3107 implementations and deployments. What you are proposing is not and has implications in both the control and forwarding planes. If you really believe that this is “the biggest issue", I’d suggest you articulate it in a separate draft with concrete use cases for having separate IP and MPLS topologies for the same set of prefixes. Then the WGs can evaluate the requirement and proposed solution independent of RFC 3107 BIS.
Thanks, Acee From: mpls <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 5:24 AM To: Eric C Rosen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: IDR List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [mpls] [Idr] Fwd: Working Group adoption poll on draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis Hi Eric, While adoption call is sort of encouragement for further input before I respond to Loa's mail I would like to get one additional answer from 3107bis authors and WGs members. Those who spend years in mpls deployment know quite well that the biggest issue with today's 3107 deployment is lack of the clear definition of its interaction with SAFI-1. While one would hope that 3107bis with new capability will clean this mess section 5 of your document rather sweeps it all under the carpet stating that it is just local policy. IMO it is not a matter of local policy nor it is implementation detail. Local policy can be to choose which RIB (or sequence of RIBs) should be used for resolution of specific SAFIs and not how to mix SAFI-1 with SAFI-4. It's not a local matter at all to have deployment resulting in inconsistent IBGP best paths across given domain. To me cleanest is to separate those two SAFIs completely from each other by the spec both in BGP (done) as well as local RIB and FIB/LFIB. Likewise I do not quite agree that SAFI-4 should be "convertible" to SAFI-1. And we all realize that opposite direction is rather hard. Another perhaps minor clarification would be to get an explicit confirmation that SAFI-4 can be recursive over SAFI-4 or for that matter SAFI-1 (MPLS in GRE or SR in IP). Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
