Shraddha, Do you see deployments today where there are configured RSVP-TE FRR paths, but there are loose routed LSPs that request no FRR protection?
Such a datapoint would be interesting to figure out whether we currently have demand for this approach — but clearly this would not necessarily say anything about future requirements. Cheers, r. > On 29 Dec 2014, at 10:12, Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Rob/Peter, > > > I think today there are networks which run only on SPF paths and having a > facility of "unprotected node-sid" is useful in my opinion > Rather than not providing such a facility in the protocol at all. > > I agree that if there is no sufficient interest on the list it can be > dropped. > I hope we can wait until the holiday season to get over to hear others > opinion on this. > > Rgds > Shraddha > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Shakir [mailto:r...@rob.sh] > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 3:11 PM > To: Shraddha Hegde > Cc: Peter Psenak; draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org; > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@tools.ietf.org; ospf@ietf.org; > isis...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions > > >> 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
