Peter, If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and while building such a path if the node-sids Need to be used (one reason could be label stack compression) , then there has to be unprotected node-sid that this service can make use of.
Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service endpoints which makes it even more relevant to have A means of representing unprotected paths. Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators. Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM To: Shraddha Hegde; draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions Shraddha, node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is directly attached to it. Protection for such local prefix does not mean much. thanks, Peter On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: > Authors, > We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the label > is protected or not. > Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to indicate > whether the node-sid is to be protected or not. > Any thoughts on this? > Rgds > Shraddha > > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > isis...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
