Hi Peter, On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:25, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > > local algorithm that picks any of the /32 IP addresses advertised by PQ node > will work in 100% of cases.
If there are local filters or control-plane protection ACLs deployed on the target node to which the T-LDP session is to be established, it is possible that these drop T-LDP traffic not targeted to a particular local address. I'm not clear on how this can be determined remotely? It seems to me that we need deterministic behaviour in order to allow operators to clearly consider this within such policies (or to know that other protocol/signalling mechanisms are required), and to ensure inter-operability. I don't see a clear reason why Hannes' suggestions do not go at least some way to providing this. In the vast majority of deployments I have seen, a consistent router ID is used for intra-domain, inter-node session termination and protocol identifier. This is more common (imho) than the highest /32 being the most suitable address. r. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
