hi robert, On May 30, 2014, at 10:04 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> point is that you can't get away with loose source routing semantics for >> supporting all the SR use-cases. > > Care to list those ? Perhaps for sake of documentation it may turn > helpful. Maybe for simplicity just limit those use cases to IP > forwarding paradigm only :)
just watch for use-cases which require an 'adjacency-label' - the 'adjacency-SID' has got 'strict routing semantics' and cannot get substituted by e.g. a node/prefix-SID which has 'loose routing semantics' the use cases i am talking are specifically: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-3.2.1 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-4.1.2 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-4.1.3 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-4.1.4 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-4.1.5 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-4.2.1 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-4.2.2 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-6.1 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00#section-6.2 HTH, /hannes _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
