Tony – If the choice is to use a prefix, I do not know why you even raise the possibility of advertising the SID other than how Prefix SIDs are done today. Is the current Reachability advertisement inadequate in some way? I don’t think so.
Les From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 11:46 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Bruno Decraene <bruno.decra...@orange.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02 Hi Les, 1)Invent a new type of SID which is associated with an area. In this case some variation of encodings defined in V2 of the draft are appropriate. But these aren’t backward compatible, which operators clearly want. 2)Use a reachable address to get to the area. That address could be the node address of the current Area Leader or an anycast address shared by all IERs. Either of these is fine by me. Do others care? IN which case existing prefix SID advertisement is appropriate coupled with a means of identifying the address. There are two proposed encodings for that. And here we haven’t come to agreement. Do others have a preference? Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr