Hi Greg & Pierre, More seriously, yes, in SR, you have to pay attention to label allocation > when installing your failover entries in the FIB. However I do not see why > it leads to having intermediate nodes maintain path information. > > Can you expand on this part of your comment? > > > > GIM>> Link mode of local protection does not require any special > consideration as the MP is the same next-hop node of the protected link. > But for node mode of local protection special consideration must be given > if SID functionality to be used. Consider case when the next-hop node has > advertised SID that is used by some e2e paths that traverse the PLR and > this node. As result, IMO, selection of the MP depends not only on > next-next-hop node of the SR path but on availability of particular SID as > well. Now we can make it more complex if the protected node owns not one > but several SIDs. I think that we may easily avoid this complexity/mess by > stating that only link mode local protection is applicable to SPRING > domains and leave service protection/redundancy to Service/SFC OAM layer. >
I think you are both right :) I think what Greg you are refering to is state of the repair "paths" in regards to IGP topology which clearly is required by all node protection solutions. Contrary what I think Pierre consider as "path" is the end to end traffic flow paths which would normally result in 100s or 1000s LSPs state - that clearly is not required in SR node protection. So what may be helpful is to rather then overloading term "path" here redefine it for the purpose of this discussion into IGP topology state (as example). Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
