Muthu,E2E protection of SR-TE LSPs against failure of Node- and Adj-SIDs that are part of the policy is definitely a valid and reasonable approach IMHO. And I also think that it can be combined with local (e.g., LFA-based) protection against failure of lunks and nodes that are NOT part of the policy and can be triggered by SR-LSP BFD as per RFC 5884. For this approach to work primary and backup SR-TE LSPs MUST NOT have any common SIDs. Unfortunately, SPRING WG leaders have strongly opposed my proposal to combine local and E2E protection when SR protection use cases draft has been discussed. Such a combination, indeed, is never used with RSVP-TE LSPs - but, IMHO, SR-Te LSPs are quite different. My 2c,Sasha Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 22:22, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal<[email protected]> wrote: __________________________________________ _____ rtgwg mailing list [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
