Stephane - Implementations based on the drafts that currently exist advertise a topology independent SRGB. A SID which is advertised in a specific MT Prefix Reachability advertisement is interpreted as an index into the topology independent SRGB. This is NOT compatible with an implementation which is written assuming that a SID is an index into a topology specific SRGB. So the introduction of topology specific SRGBs would have to be supported network-wide before it could be deployed. Sub-TLVs cannot resolve this incompatibility.
Les > -----Original Message----- > From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:25 AM > To: Pushpasis Sarkar; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Uma Chunduri; Peter Psenak > (ppsenak); Eric Rosen; SPRING WG > Subject: Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain > > Hi Pushpasis, > > I just want to remember that the discussion is not only for MT, but there was > also a thread for per algorithm SRGB (as presented in Prague). IMO, there > must be some consistency in the choice we do. > Regarding encoding nothing is impossible (as example a new subTLV can be > created ensuring backward compatibility). > I would say let's first have a consensus of what is good to do independently > of the encoding. > > Best Regards, > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 07:36 > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Uma Chunduri; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; > Peter Psenak (ppsenak); Eric Rosen; SPRING WG > Subject: Re: [spring] SRGBs, indexes, and topologies within a domain > > Hi Les, > > > > > On 8/26/15, 7:13 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >[Les:] Topology specific SRGBs requires a specification change for the IGPs. > The new advertisements are NOT backwards compatible w existing > implementations. So we cannot simply say "do what you please". > >Peter has repeatedly made this point - and also pointed out that since the > prefix advertisements as currently defined in the IGP drafts includes > topology identifiers including the topology identifier in the SRGB > advertisement is redundant. > [Pushpasis] Why not add a MT-SR_Capability Sub/TLV then? That way it > won’t break backward compatibility? > > Thanks > -Pushpasis > > __________________________________________________________ > __________________________________________________________ > _____ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, > exploites > ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez > le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute > responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, > used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
