Hi Pushpasis,
On 8/20/15 11:20 , Pushpasis Sarkar wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 8/19/15, 6:15 PM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm not sure we want to advertise redundant data to allow more
configuration flexibility. From both architecture and encoding
perspective it's preferable to pick single approach. And it looks like
to me one has been picked already by both architecture and encoding.
[Pushpasis] I think that¹s what Eric and myself has been trying to say..
Whatever the architecture and the encoding has picked does not seem to be
enough. :) Again I will wait for others to chime in and let us know if
they need this change or not.
my concern is that the change in the architecture you are proposing will
results in an encoding which will be redundant and confusing. Unless the
change in architecture is absolutely necessary, which does not seem to
be the case here, I would tend to leave it as it is.
thanks,
Peter
Also the MTID is not attached to the prefix-SID but the
prefix with which the SID-index is attached.
In OSPF we took an approach of advertising the prefix once and encode
MTID in each attribute. So in OSPF MTID it is attached to Prefix SID.
ISIS uses different approach, where prefix as such is advertised for
each MTID independently with all the MTID specific attributes.
[Pushpasis] Yes, I am aware of that :)
Thanks
-Pushpasis
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
