>> But I would note - maintaining unique indices across all nodes
>> (starting from the starting point of the SRGB) for each topology
is
>> way harder than maintaining one set of unique index per node.
With 10
>> topologies in the below example, with 1000 nodes per topology,
in per
>> index case operator ought to maintain 10 * 1000 = 10000 unique
>> objects. But in the other case of per topology SRGB operator has
to
>> only maintain
>> 1000 (unique labels/SID Index) + 10 (SRGB offsets) = 1010 unique
objects in
>> total. I am not sure how maintaining
>> *more* unique objects would be easier.
>[Les:] Regardless of approach, you have a unique label for a given
prefix/topology pair.
>So you have the same number of "objects" in both cases. This is very
clear if you look at
>what is installed in the forwarding plane. Do not make the mistake of
confusing CLI
>syntax w the number of labels being used.
[Uma]: Les, No- I was not making any mistake of confusing with CLI syntax.
Also, I was not at
all taking about uniqueness from forwarding plane PoV. In either approach those
of course would be unique from forwarding plane PoV.
The point is maintaining unique SID values per topology and per algorithm would
be from
operational standpoint is excessively difficult (as we can see unique objects
to be
provisioned would be multiplied) and easily avoidable.
--
Uma C.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
