Xiaohu, On 11/8/13 13:07 , Xuxiaohu wrote: > Peter, > > In my understanding, the OSPF EP LSAs containing SID/label bindings just play > the role of label distribution protocols. Since LDP can support the > longest-matching algorithm for LFIB installation, why OSPF EP LSAs could not > support that capability?
because we do not want OSPF EP LSAs to do what you want to use it for. thanks, Peter > > BR > Xiaohu > > ________________________________________ > 发件人: Peter Psenak [[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2013年11月9日 4:58 > 收件人: Xuxiaohu > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] > 主题: Re: 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF > extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing > > 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 >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
