> On 29 Dec 2014, at 09:33, Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> wrote: > > <Shraddha> It is likely that some application wants to use the node-sids when > the strict path for performance sensitive traffic matches with that of the > SPF for some segments or for the entire path. >
There is nothing stopping it doing so, but it cannot deterministically say that the path will remain coherent with the one that it expects for multiple reasons: 1) Nodes along the path may select a subset of ECMPs, the performance of which may vary. 2) There may be topology changes (triggered by failure or not) which mean that the shortest-path may change. Given that either of these can result in performance variance, it’s very likely (from a practical standpoint) that the traffic must be able to live with FRRs too - hence it being unclear to me that there’s a requirement for an ‘unprotected’ Node SID. r. _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
