Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

2020-07-29 Thread Hannes Gredler
Thomas, I have one comment/suggestion to Paragraph 4 (IANA Considerations). Please add also a code point for BGP Prefix-SID - it’s quite popular in DC deployments. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8669 thanks, /hannes > On 28.07.2020, at 10:11,

Re: [Lsr] "IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment" -draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments-02

2020-07-29 Thread Hannes Gredler
Yao, BGP-LS was designed to solve also the distribution of link-state information between BGP speakers (see Figure 1 from RFC 7752 below). Just ask yourself: why would one want to use a point to multipoint state replication protocol as complex as BGP for *just* client server alike replication

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-29 Thread Aijun Wang
Interesting but complex/not efficient solution. How to solve the problem in IPv6 network? From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 10:18 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Robert Raszuk Cc: Aijun Wang ; Zhibo Hu ; Yaqun Xiao ; lsr@ietf.org

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-29 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Acee: From: a...@cisco.com [mailto:a...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:22 PM To: Aijun Wang ; 'Aijun Wang' ; lsr@ietf.org Cc: 'Zhibo Hu' ; 'Yaqun Xiao' Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt Hi Aijun, You

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-29 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Robert: Agree with you J Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: rob...@raszuk.net [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 5:18 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) Cc: Aijun Wang ; lsr@ietf.org; Zhibo Hu ; Yaqun Xiao Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-29 Thread Huzhibo
Hi Acee: In the scenario mentioned by Robert, the section 6.1 solution doesn't work. When BGP needs to detect the reachability of the next hop to trigger BGP convergence. Thanks Zhibo Hu -Original Message- From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28,

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-29 Thread Huzhibo
Hi Robert: BGP next hop validation can solve some but not all problems. In your example, if PE1 has learned only 1.1.1.0/24 but not 1.1.1.1/32, BGP cannot detect the reachability of 1.1.1.1/32. Thanks Zhibo Hu From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

2020-07-29 Thread Robert Raszuk
Not sure I follow your below comment or how it relates to my deployment scenario ... I specifically said that 1.1.1.1/32 will be a negative route (there is "-" minus there) advertised in BGP. If you mean that reception of negative routes in the presence of summary requires changes to RIB route

Re: [Lsr] "IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment" -draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments-02

2020-07-29 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Thanks Hannes – this is exactly what I was suggesting rather than advertising the BGP-LS information in the IGPs. Acee From: Hannes Gredler Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 3:14 AM To: "liu.ya...@zte.com.cn" Cc: Acee Lindem , "zzhang_i...@hotmail.com" , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr]

Re: [Lsr] "IGP Extensions for Segment Routing Service Segment"-draft-lz-lsr-igp-sr-service-segments-02

2020-07-29 Thread liu.yao71
Hi Hannes, Thanks for the correction. My previous description is not accurate. What I try to say is that, the operator can run either IGP or BGP on the SF nodes based on the network deployment consideration. If a network is deployed as shown in the figure below, we can choose to use IGP to