Xiaohu, I understand what you started this thread with.
What I'm trying to say is that even if OSPF separates the advertisement of prefix and prefix SID/label, you should not be using the SID/label advertisement without the actual prefix reachability advertisement. thanks, Peter On 11/8/13 12:50 , Xuxiaohu wrote: > Hi Peter, > > You misunderstood what I have said. On the contrary, the OSPF extension draft > looks fine to me. It's the ISIS extension draft that I believed should follow > the similar approach defined in the OSPF extension draft. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > ________________________________________ > 发件人: Peter Psenak [[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2013年11月9日 4:37 > 收件人: Xuxiaohu > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] > 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention > and IS-IS extension for segment routing > > Xiaohu, > > OSPF SR draft clearly states that newly defined Extended Prefix Opaque > LSAs do not contribute to the prefix reachability. What you are asking > for is to negate that and install forwarding entries based on what is in > the EP-LSA, without prefix being advertised in any regular LSA. Once you > start to do that you will end up with all sorts of problems. I would > like to keep the current definition in place. > > > thanks, > Peter > > > On 11/8/13 12:04 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Sure. However, why not borrow the idea of longest-matching algorithm >> proposed in that RFC to SR? >> >> BR, >> Xiaohu >> >> ________________________________________ >> 发件人: [email protected] [[email protected]] 代表 Peter Psenak >> [[email protected]] >> 发送时间: 2013年11月9日 3:56 >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] >> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and >> IS-IS extension for segment routing >> >> 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
