Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll Coincident with the Working Group Last Call for "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-06.txt

Hi Robin, I’m only missing your IPR declaration. Thanks, Acee From: Huzhibo Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 11:08 PM To: Acee Lindem , "draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-s...@ietf.org" Cc: lsr Subject: RE: IPR Poll Coincident with the Working Group Last Call for "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6" -

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

On 05/08/2022 09:42, Robert Raszuk wrote: you advertise the algo X locator as UPA. So as UPA is generated by ABRs now ABRs must be locator aware. locator is a prefix, just advertised in a different TLV. Moreover local flooding must be able to map nodes to locators and locators must

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

> > you advertise the algo X locator as UPA. > So as UPA is generated by ABRs now ABRs must be locator aware. Moreover local flooding must be able to map nodes to locators and locators must be flooded in the underlay. If one wants to tunnel flex-algo's between POPs across base (say core not

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

On 05/08/2022 09:24, Robert Raszuk wrote: So how do I forward my services with SRv6 if I advertise all with single BGP next hop /128 across N flex algos ? services that want to use algo X forwarding need to be advertise with service SID that is part of the algo X locator. Assume for

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

So how do I forward my services with SRv6 if I advertise all with single BGP next hop /128 across N flex algos ? Assume for mapping I am attaching BGP Tunnel Attribute and signal on a per service route which flex-algo to use. Moreover how do I UPA some flex-algo's becoming unreachable in the

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

Robert, On 05/08/2022 09:09, Robert Raszuk wrote: Peter, Side question ... Assume PE participates in 10 end to end flex-algos. However BGP advertises 100K service routes with base 0 nh 1.1.1.1/32 Are you stating that BGP should advertise 100K routes 10 times with

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

Peter, Side question ... Assume PE participates in 10 end to end flex-algos. However BGP advertises 100K service routes with base 0 nh 1.1.1.1/32 Are you stating that BGP should advertise 100K routes 10 times with different IP address ? Note that mapping to flex-algo may not be prefix based

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

Zhibo, On 05/08/2022 05:49, Huzhibo wrote: Peter: -Original Message- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 1:55 PM To: Huzhibo Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce Zhibo, On 03/08/2022 21:09,

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

Peter: > -Original Message- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 1:55 PM > To: Huzhibo > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce > > Zhibo, > > On 03/08/2022 21:09, Huzhibo wrote: > > Hi

Re: [Lsr] Question about draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce

Hi, Peter: Extend the meaning of "LSInifinity" for indicating the unreachability will again complex the deployment. Comply with the original rules for "LSInifinity" in related RFCs (that is, "bypass the SPF calculation for the prefixed that carried with this value") will generate less back