Some corrections inline
On 10/8/15, 9:59 PM, "Isis-wg on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Hi Les, > > > >On 10/8/15, 8:51 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Pushpasis - >> >>Not all conflicts are intra-area - so your response does not cover all cases. >[Pushpasis] I did not get the above statement. But essentially I meant that in >a given area if the same index is originated (and not >re-advertise/re-originated) by multiple nodes, the ABRs in that node should >not propagate the prefix-sid-tlvs for that prefix to other area.. > >> >>In addition, your proposal introduces some new problem areas. Do we leak the >>prefix but remove the conflicting SID info or stop leaking the prefix >>entirely? >[Pushpasis] Prefix should still be re-advertised, but without the >prefix-sid-subtlv. So you stop the SR-reachability without affecting the >native IP-reachability. > >Thanks >-Pushpasis >> >>If you think about these issues I believe the advantage of Stefano's proposal >>becomes clear. >> >> Les >_______________________________________________ >Isis-wg mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
