Hi Peter, Sure. I will let the operators on the list to decide if this needed. No more nagging from my side :)
Thanks -Pushpasis On 8/20/15, 4:43 PM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
