+1, I confirm the two different goals to achieve in the draft. As Les mentioned, implementing it both in a common policy framework or in two different features is implementation dependent.
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 07:42 To: Pushpasis Sarkar; Jeff Tantsura; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; [email protected] Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required Pushpassis - Conceptually, there are two different functionalities being discussed: 1)Supporting selection of what prefixes are eligible for protection. This is what Section 5.1 of the draft discusses. 2)For the set of prefixes which are eligible for protection, supporting policy to choose between multiple LFA candidates. This is discussed in Section 5.2 of the draft. How you choose to implement this support is outside the scope of both the draft and this discussion. Les From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:33 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Jeff Tantsura; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> abiloity to limit the set of prefixes m; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required Hi Les, From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:46 AM To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required [Les:] "backup-selection-policy" specifies which member of an LFA set should be preferred when there are multiple candidates for protecting a given prefix. What we are discussing here is controlling which prefixes are eligible for protection. These ae two different concepts. [Pushpasis] Well, it is not only preferring. It can also be not-preferring-any (or pruning). So if no protection for any IPv6 is required, it can be achieved by a policy as belows: Destination ipv6-all { { Interface all { Neighbor exclude all; } } _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
