Hi all,
The life span of an unprotected Adj-SID matches the life span of the
corresponding IGP adjacency. This means that there can be no Adj-SIDs on
passive IGP interfaces because no IGP adjacencies are formed across thesd
interfaces.
Inter-AS interfaces can be associated with BGP Peer Segment IDs as described in
the BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) draft.
Hopefully this helps.
Thumb typed by Sasha Vainshtein
________________________________
From: spring <[email protected]> on behalf of Christian Franke
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:40:11 AM
To: [email protected]; SPRING; LSR
Subject: Re: [spring] [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface
On 5/10/19 9:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> In the current state of Segment Routing drafts, do you think it is possible
> to advertise
> Adjacency SID on such passive or inter-domain interfaces or do we need to
> specify this behaviour
> in a new draft ?
>
> For me I don't see anything in the drafts that prohibits this kind of
> advertisement, but perhaps I'm wrong.
My understanding is that the SID is specific to an adjacency and
advertised in IS-IS in either TLV 22, 222, 23, 223.
As adjacencies will not be formed on a passive interface, an adjacency
SID should not be advertised for the passive interface.
I might also be wrong here, though.
All Best,
Chris
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
___________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information
which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received
this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
