hi les,

HG> inline.

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 06:42:11AM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
|    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.
| 

yes and no; -

the troubling thing is that this document serves as a blueprint for the YANG
modeling. - as soon as we keep the optional nature of things in the yang model
itself i am fine, but then derek has to stop insisting on this in YANG.


| 
|    From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:[email protected]]
|    Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 10:33 PM
|    To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Jeff Tantsura;
|    [1][email protected] abiloity to limit the set of prefixes
|    m; [email protected]
|    Subject: Re: LFA manageability : per AF config => feedback required
| 
| 
| 
|    Hi Les,
| 
| 
| 
|    From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[2][email protected]>
|    Date: Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:46 AM
|    To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[3][email protected]>, Jeff Tantsura
|    <[4][email protected]>, "[5][email protected]"
|    <[6][email protected]>, "[7][email protected]"
|    <[8][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;
| 
|       }
| 
|    }
| 
| 
| 
| References
| 
|    Visible links
|    1. mailto:[email protected]
|    2. mailto:[email protected]
|    3. mailto:[email protected]
|    4. mailto:[email protected]
|    5. mailto:[email protected]
|    6. mailto:[email protected]
|    7. mailto:[email protected]
|    8. mailto:[email protected]

| _______________________________________________
| rtgwg mailing list
| [email protected]
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to