I do not understand the question
Ahmed
On 11/23/2017 5:15 AM, Huzhibo wrote:
Because the normal FRR can not protect the designated node of SR-TE, a
method is provided to perform the label POP action by the penultimate
hop of the specified node replacing the specified node and forward it
to the node corresponding to the next label. However, Here are some
questions we can discuss, if it is a loose path, SR-TE designated node
failure, the packet can not be forwarded to the penultimate hop of the
specified node.
*? ??:*rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] *? ? *Muthu Arul Mozhi
Perumal
*? ???:*2017?11?23?21:04
*???:*[email protected]
*??:*[email protected]
*??:*Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints
(draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa)
My understanding is that draft wants to provide a solution for the
problem where the active segment is a prefix/adjacency segment of the
neighbor and the neighbor fails. A solution to this is possible only
at a node that is enforcing the SR policy (consisting of the segment
list). For a transit node, its data plane would have to peek into the
label stack and determine the type of the segment/label following the
active segment and act accordingly, which is not inline with the SR
architecture which requires SR to work 'as is' on traditional MPLS
data plane
Muthu
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Muthu and all,
I do not see how the draft in quesrion us related to "SR Policy".
From my POV its scope is a SR LSP comprised of multiple Node SIDs
within a single IGP domain, and it provides local fast protection
against failure of a node that terminates one of the segments
comprising this LSP. Pritection action is performed by the
penultimate node.
My 2c.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:27, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Section 5.3 of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
describes protecting SR policy midpoints against node failure
for the case where the active segment is the prefix or
adjacency segment of a neighbor.
I believe the steps described in the procedure is applicable
only for a node steering packets into the SR policy. This
could be an ingress PE steering IP packets into a SR-TE tunnel
or an intermediate node steering labeled packets received with
a BSID into a SR-TE tunnel identified by that BSID.
A transit node that has no idea about the SR policy itself is
not expected to perform the procedure described in that section.
Is my understanding correct?
Regards,
Muthu
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
