Les,

>  You need to allow that not everything in the world is identified by an
IP/IPv6 address.

Thought we are talking about WAN networks here and not about the world :)

>  assign a common anycast address on all nodes.

First not all nodes need to participate here. At most ABRs.

Then if you already have a summary route from a given area - you do not
need to invent anything else - area summary routes are effectively area
prefixes. And in fact last time I checked routable too.

>  I can associate the SID with an identifier

Do you ping SID or IP address ?

Maybe time for examples.

What would be your MPLS area SID format ? How about SRv6 SID format for the
same ?

Bottom line I think we must not lock ourselves into single transport
technology - that's all I am after here.

Thx,
Robert.


On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:56 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Robert –
>
>
>
> You need to allow that not everything in the world is identified by an
> IP/IPv6 address.
>
>
>
> If you want an IP address shared by all nodes in an area there is already
> a mean of doing that: assign a common anycast address on all nodes.
>
>
>
> The value add (if there is any) of an Area SID is that I don’t have to
> assign an anycast address to all nodes. I can associate the SID with an
> identifier that is already shared and known by all nodes in the area.
>
> If you don’t see that as worthwhile, fine, let’s abandon the Area SID idea.
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 03, 2020 10:47 AM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* bruno.decra...@orange.com; tony...@tony.li; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
>
>
> Well I am talking about IP routable identifier which I can place on the
> front of the packet and which can assure that the packet will arrive at
> given area.
>
>
>
> Then Area SID becomes analogy of Node SID :)
>
>
>
> Thx
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:40 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Robert –
>
>
>
> Both OSPF and IS-IS have area identifiers which are advertised.
>
> Why would we need to invent another identifier for an area?
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 03, 2020 10:31 AM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* bruno.decra...@orange.com; tony...@tony.li; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02.txt
>
>
>
> *Les,*
>
>
>
> *> But currently the draft is defining a SID which is NOT associated with
> a prefix.*
>
> +
>
> > *But if the proposal is to use a SID associated with a prefix then I
> see no need to invent a new SID advertisement.*
>
>
>
> How about we first define an "Area Prefix" (IP address being a property of
> an area) then assign SID to it ?
>
>
>
> - - -
>
>
>
> How odd it may sound I would like to still be able to direct traffic (read
> ip tunnel) traffic to an area without any SID.
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to