Hi Tony, Bruno, Les, From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Tony Li <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 11:26 AM To: Bruno Decraene <[email protected]> Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
