Les,

> We don’t have to resolve this now.
> One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of 
> code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG 
> adoption is achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation 
> request – and as one of the Designated Experts I wanted to share my concerns 
> sooner rather than later.


I appreciate that.  Do others share Les’ perspective on the relative tradeoffs? 
 Especially our other Desginated Experts?


> Would this argue for advertising “this is a boundary circuit” in pseudo-node 
> LSPs for boundary circuits rather than advertising “inside” on all inside 
> pseudo-nodes?
>   
> You could do it that way.  It inverts the semantics and inverts the 
> deployment.  Logically, it should have the same effect.  However, it then is 
> seen by outside nodes.  Since they need not support Area Proxy, this seemed 
> like a riskier approach, thus we opted for marking inside pseudonodes.
>  
> [Les:] My point was largely motivated by the statement in the draft:
>  
> “Area Proxy Boundary multi-access circuits (i.e.  Ethernets in LAN
>    mode) with multiple Inside Edge Routers on them are not supported.”
>  
> So it seems advantageous to be able to prevent this from happening – which 
> requires some signaling on the circuit in question.



I think that the case that you’re concerned about is already easily detected.  
Recall that an Inside Edge router will generate IIH’s onto a boundary circuit 
using the Proxy system ID.  Thus, if an Inside Edge router receives an IIH with 
a source address of it’s own proxy system id, then it has encountered this 
issue.

Tony


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to