Hi Peter:
Please see inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 11:20 PM
> To: Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com>
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce
>
> Hi Zhibo,
>
> On 29/07/2022 20:49, Huzhibo wrote:
> > Hi Peter:
> >
> > Supplement to yesterday's online questions, If a node that does not
> > support IP Flexalgo, which has a default route, should the node
> > process the IP Flexalgo prefix as a UPA?
>
> - I assume you are talking about the algo 0 default route. Because IP
> Flex-algo
> default route does not make much sense really.
>
> - If the node does not support IP flex-algo, than it would not use any IP algo
> prefix as BGP service endpoint or for any other purpose.
>
Which IP Algo prefix as BGP service endpoint is not determined by the ingress
node, Such as VXLAN and SRv6 VPN.
When the ingress node receives an BGP Service cayyied a IP algo prefix as
endpoint and it has a algo 0 default route,
it should be process this BGP service. and this can not be affected by the IGP
Flexalgo prefix. Therefore,
the IGP does only not generate the RIB/Fib for LSinfinity Metric prefix, but
can not trigger BGP Service Down.
In addition, LSinfinity Metric may be applied to other scenarios in the future.
We cannot guarantee that LSinfinity Metric
will not conflict with other purposes when being processed as a UPA.
> - If such node receives the IP algo prefix and even if it treats it as UPA,
> given
> that such IP algo prefix was never reachable before on this node, the UPA
> would result in no action.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Zhibo
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
