Hi Peter,
On 10/9/15, 4:01 PM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected]> wrote: >there is other side of the coin too. The more complexity you add, more >difficult will it be to develop, deploy, maintain and support. So you >need to balance it with the gain you get. [Pushpasis] I think principal-wise we are saying the same thing… The only disagreement is about that... While you are saying this proposal is more complex.. I am saying without this proposal it is more limiting… :) My personal opinion we should try to remove the limitations.. And if the WG consensus is that the limitations are not considerable and operators can live with… i.e. it is okay to have the limitation to always have per-prefix-index (one index per prefix)... Then.. I would prefer that to be explicitly stated in the SR drafts. Currently all it says is ‘IGP Prefix SID MUST be globally unique in a IGP domain’. It is not clear what it really means.. One can easily interpret it as no two node in the IGP domain can originate/assign the same Prefix SID. It does not say that a single node cannot use the same Prefix SID for multiple locally-originated prefixes (e.g. Local loopback address). That needs to be clarified with some explicit text in all the relevant SR drafts. Thanks -Pushpasis _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
