Robert, > Hi, > > Two comments on this document. > > > Question: > > Assume there is label binding received for a given FEC from/by > multiple protocols. Which one should be chosen by the LSR to be used > in data plane? Choosing wrong one may jeoparadise the hope of > stitching. > > Is consistent manual configuration across multiple LSRs an answer ? > > If so document should mention that. Otherwise analogy of admin > distance for FECs should be proposed. > > Example: Is FEC distributed by OSPF more important then FEC > distributed by targetted LDP session in the same OSPF domain ? > > On the other hand if this case is considered an error a corresponding > error handling section may be required.
When a router obtains label binding for a given FEC from more than one label distribution protocol (e.g., one binding from targeted LDP and another from IS-IS/OSPF), deciding which label binding to use is a matter of policy local to the router. Use of the administrative distance is an instance of such policy. In the scenario where a router obtains label binding for a given FEC from both targeted LDP and IS-IS/OSPF, one could argue that a reasonable default behavior would be to prefer the one obtained from targeted LDP. > Recommendation: > > s/distirbution/distribution/ Will fix in the next version. Thanks. Yakov. > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Yakov Rekhter <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alvaro and John, > > > > The authors of draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05.txt would like > > to ask SPRING WG to accept this draft as SPRING WG document. > > > > Yakov. > > ------- Forwarded Message > > > > Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:33:51 -0700 > > From: <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: I-D Action: draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05.txt > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director ies. > > > > > > Title : Supporting Source/Explicitly Routed Tunnels via S tack > > ed LSPs > > Authors : Hannes Gredler > > Yakov Rekhter > > Luay Jalil > > Sriganesh Kini > > Xiaohu Xu > > Filename : draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05.txt > > Pages : 17 > > Date : 2014-05-16 > > > > Abstract: > > This document describes how source/explicitly routed tunnels could be > > realized using stacked Label Switched Paths (LSPs). > > > > This document also describes how use of IS-IS/OSPF as a label > > distribution protocol fits into the MPLS architecture. > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gredler-spring-mpls/ > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gredler-spring-mpls-05 > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio n > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I-D-Announce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > > > _______________________________________________ > > spring mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
