On September 26, 2018 at 5:46:18 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ([email protected]) wrote: Benjamin:
Hi! I don’t see your updated ballot in my archive…hmmm..?? But I wanted to reply to the additional point. You wrote: === I'm not sure I followed correctly some discussion around the rtgdir review, specifically the meaning of the indicated MSD value for SR-enabled vs. non-SR-enabled networks. In particular, I still don't really understand why it's okay to use the same codepoint (value 1 as assigned here) for the max SID depth in SR-enabled networks and for the max label depth in non-SR MPLS networks. Why couldn't they just be separate MSD Type codepoints? === The answer is relatively simple: SR doesn’t change the MPLS architecture, it just looks at the label stack in a different way by calling the labels a segment [rfc8402]. IOW, the SID depth is the same as the max label depth because a segment is the same as a label (for the purposes of forwarding and considering the max segment/label depth). Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
