Hi Tony, Bruno, Les,

From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 11:26 AM
To: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decra...@orange.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" 
<lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02


Hi Bruno,




[Bruno] Agreed so far.
Do we agree that draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy uses the SID/Label sub-TLV? We 
both agree that this sub-TLV has no mention of the global flag nor the routing 
algoto be used.


So far, we do NOT have agreement on that.  Your argument yesterday (backed by 
Robert) is pretty compelling: go ahead and assign a prefix and now the Area SID 
may be advertised as a Node SID in the Proxy LSP. If we take that direction, 
this discussion is moot.

Why wouldn’t we take this approach? Since the border routers are abstracting 
the area as a node, why wouldn’t we do the same for the Node-SID?

Thanks,
Acee

Tony

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

Reply via email to