Rob,
On 13.12.2012 20:56, Rob Shakir wrote:
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.
my suggestion was to use rtr-id of the PQ node as a first choice and
fallback to highest /32 address as a last resort.
Peter
r.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
