Xiaohu, there is no LDP in the SR network, so RFC5283 is not applicable.
thanks, Peter On 11/7/13 17:28 , Xuxiaohu wrote: > Hi Peter, > > The 'longest-match algorithm' for LIB installation has been proposed by > RFC5283. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > ________________________________________ > 发件人: Peter Psenak [[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2013年11月8日 8:39 > 收件人: Xuxiaohu > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] > 主题: Re: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension > for segment routing > > Xiaohu, > > On 11/7/13 16:23 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, > ] >> if you aggregate on area/L1L2 boundary, SIDs/labels for individual >> prefixes that are covered by the aggregate are useless in the area to >> which you aggregate - there will be no FIB entries for these individual >> prefixes in such area. So if you aggregate, there is no need to >> propagate SIDs/labels for aggregated prefixes. >> >> [Xiaohu] "In the multi-area/level >> scenario where route summary between areas/levels is required, the IP >> longest-match algorithm SHOULD be used by SR-capable routers when >> processing label bindings advertised by the mapping server" For more >> details, please read the Introduction section of >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00 > > I don't understand. If you summarize, then only the summary prefix will > be visible in the backbone (and remote areas) and installed in the FIB > on all routers in these areas. > > Where would you apply 'longest-match algorithm' when you only see the > single summary? How would you use the SID/label for prefixes that are > covered by the summary? > > thanks, > Peter > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
