Hi Hannes, Thanks for your comments. We will propose an alternate encoding.
Tony > On Jun 25, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at> wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > I do share Les’ concerns on burning top-level 8-bit code point space at this > point. > > At this point it is not me to judge wether CAP TLV or GENAPP TLV or something > else should be a more appropriate place. > Please let's have a WG discussion on this. > > Thanks, > > /hannes > >> On 21.06.2020, at 18:50, tony...@tony.li <mailto:tony...@tony.li> wrote: >> >> >> 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 <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr