Folks, A bit related to Aijun's point but I have question to the text from the draft he quoted:
In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in both a IPv4 Prefix Reachability TLV and an IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV, the IPv4 Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred when installing entries in the forwarding plane. Does this really mean that I can not for a given prefix say /24 use default topology for best effort traffic and new flex-algo topology for specific application ? Is the "workaround 1" to always build two new topologies for such /24 prefix (one following base topo and one new) and never advertise it in base topology ? Is the "workaround 2" to forget about native forwarding and use for example SR and mark the packets such that SID pool corresponding to base topology forwarding will be separate from SID pool corresponding to new flex-algo topology ? Many thx, Robert ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Acee Lindem via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Date: Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:36 PM Subject: [Lsr] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-06 To: <j...@juniper.net> Cc: <a...@cisco.com>, <iesg-secret...@ietf.org>, <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>, < lsr@ietf.org> Acee Lindem has requested publication of draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-06 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the LSR working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo/ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
