only can speak for IS-IS -
afaik the Trill extensions gave us a way of signaling the MTU of a link ...

so what we could do is to advertise the MTU for each adjacency and implement
proper fragmentation at the TE tunnel ingress.

/hannes

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:24:23AM +0000, Lizhenbin wrote:
|    Hi all authors of segment routing,
| 
|    This is the seventh commens. The issues proposed here are for both SR-TE
|    path and SR-BE path.
| 
| 
| 
|             1              1           1            1
|      S11-----------S12----------S13---------S14---------S15
|       |             |            |           |           |
|      1|            1|           1|          1|          1|
|       |             |            |           |           |
|      S21-----------S22----------S23---------S24---------S25
|             4              4           4            4
| 
| 
| 
|    Still take the topology in the comment 6 as the example. No matter the
|    loose explicit path or
| 
|    the strict explicit path for the loose hop, assume the MTU of the
|    interface is the same,
| 
|    since the depth of the label stacks for the primary path and the backup
|    path are different.
| 
|    There is the risk that the effetive payload may transmit through the
|    primary path, but may be
| 
|    fragmented or dropped in the backup path. As the difference between the
|    label stacks of the
| 
|    primary path and the backup path increase, the risk will increase.
| 
| 
| 
|    From the case, we can deduce that the risk may exists for any scenarios in
|    which the same traffic
| 
|     may switch from one SR path to the other SR path. The SR path includes
|    SR-TE path such as MPLS TE
| 
|    hotstandby/reoptimization and SR-BE path such as TI-FRR.
| 
| 
| 
|    Besides above issues, LDP/RSVP-TE can support the path MTU to track the
|    MTU informaiton along the
| 
|    LSP through signalling. Then the reasonable MTU info will be adopted in
|    the ingress node. For both
| 
|     SR-TE path (if PCE is not used) and SR-BE path, since there is no
|    signalling to advertise
| 
|    the information. How to implement the feature? Or there maybe the risk
|    that the packet may be
| 
|    dropped by the nodes along the LSP.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
|    Regards,
| 
|    Robin

| _______________________________________________
| spring mailing list
| [email protected]
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to