Yes.You are right. Lets say a prefix sid has a flag "p flag". If this is on it means build a path and provide protection. If this is off it means build a path with no protection. The receivers of the prefix-sid will build forwarding plane based on this flag.
The applications building the paths will either use prefix-sids with p flag on or off based on the need of the service. Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:49 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, the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can not advertise any data regarding the protection of such prefix, because the prefix is locally attached. thanks, Peter On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote: > 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
