On 9/17/14 3:26 AM, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote:
Xiaohu: Hi! Sorry for the delay.. >The rationale of this draft is simple and clear: for a given label >binding of FEC X learnt though IGPs, if the IGP next-hop for FEC X is a >non-SPRING node (i.e., just a normal IGP router which supports IP >forwarding), that label binding should be treated as it was remotely >learnt from the originating router of that label binding, just as if it >was learnt from a remote LDP peer or BGP peer. In other words, the packet >with such label as the top label should be tunneled towards that remote >peer via some type of IP-based tunnel. > >Such procedure is very useful for incremental deployment purpose and some >special use cases and therefore it should be specified somewhere. >Therefore we co-authors request you to issue a WG adoption poll on this >draft. Thanks. I don't doubt that we will be faced with incremental deployments and that a spring-based network will need to interact with existing networks. In fact, the charter already includes work on inter-working and coexistence. However, it is too early to consider this draft (or any other similar proposal) because we need to first adopt the architecture, to officially know what we'll have to make interoperate with something else.. In the meantime, please work on building interest on the use case (you mention "some special use cases" above, but I didn't see details in the draft) within the WG. Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
