I agree with Jon’s comments. The only possible benefit is that a human
could associate a given SID/label with its usage. However, that benefit is
only realized if one has consistent per algorithm/topology SRGBs
throughout the routing domain.
Thanks,
Acee 


On 7/21/15, 2:34 PM, "spring on behalf of Jon Mitchell"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

>On 24/06/15 23:09 +0000, Chris Bowers wrote:
>> This updated version of the draft includes a concrete proposal for ISIS
>>extensions to implement per-algorithm label blocks.
>> 
>
>Chris -
>
>As you discussed in the meeting today in option 2 (the proposal) there
>is a "savings" that is achieved by not allocating a large label space as
>is required in option 1 since we may not be able to predict the future
>of algorithm needs in the network.  But wouldn't you agree that since
>you are allocating a node index in every fractured address space
>(whether required or not) in option 2, since address space that is
>partitioned typically consumes more space than unfractured space (due to
>loss because of imperfect planning), as you increase the number of
>algorithms aren't you more likely to consume more overall space with
>this technique?
>
>Secondly there was a statement made that there is an advantage to option
>2 that it allows easier provisioning of node index value (as it's
>reused) per algorithm.  Isn't it just as easy for an implementation to
>allow the user to just configure a local implementation offset for an
>algorithm which requires no protocol changes and has more flexiblity as
>it doesn't need to be configured for prefix SID's that don't require it
>(similar as Ahmed suggested at the mic, i.e. algorithm 2 = +1000) that
>could be configured at every node?  Assuming OSS provisions SID's
>sequentially this seems to work just as well...
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jon
>
>_______________________________________________
>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