Hi Pushpasis, On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Acee, From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:37 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Hannes Gredler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang Hi Pushpasis, On Jul 30, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Acee, From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 7:18 PM To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Hannes Gredler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang Robert, Pushpasis, Shraddha, I guess I don’t understand why this gives you any operational advantage when you are migrating between protocol (e.g., from IS-IS to OSPF ;^). In fact, if you are using separate label spaces it will make migration more difficult and you will have to migrate your routing domain in shot rather than incrementally. [Pushpasis] All routers will program both transit mpls labels and create two parallel MPLS data planes well before the last step when all the ingress router will be instructed to switch traffic onto the new MPLS data plane (programmed by the new protocol) by changing the admin distance. That way the migration shall become seamless. And then once all ingreess routers has been swicthed to the new protocol and new MPLS dataplane, the old protocol and old MPLS data plane can be just removed from all the routers. Hope it is clear now… Normally only the protocol with the lower preference or admin distance would install a route to a particular prefix (including the label) into the RIB/LIB for the base IP unicast topology. I guess you are envisioning separate RIBs per protocol as well? [Pushpasis] What you are saying is true for the IP/V6—>MPLS route in RIB/FIB on ingress routers. It is NOT TRUE for MPLS transit routes in LFIB. In MPLS architecture no two protocols installs the same label in LFIB. Each protocol (LDP/RSVP) uses different transit labels for the same destination IP/V6 FEC. That is one way to implement it but it makes more sense for the IGP label imposition and label stitching to both be dependent on the route being preferred. However, in another conversation I have been convinced that the network consolidation use case could benefit from configuration of per-protocol SRGB so I’m no longer opposed to this being a feature of the YANG model. Thanks, Acee Thanks, Acee Thanks, Acee On Jul 30, 2015, at 3:11 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: +1 From: Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 8:58 AM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Hannes Gredler <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [spring] Modeling SRGB configuration for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang [Shraddha] route preference is local to router and the neighbor never knows what the other is going to choose. If there are inconsistencies in two protocols, there are going to be loops even when they use same SRGB. Keeping different labels makes it easier to troubleshoot. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
