Hi, Scenario 1 - I do not see any prefix conflict. Those are independent /24 prefixes.
Scenario 2 - X IP prefix will be installed in RIB but SR labels (entire range) will be blocked for X. Scenario 3 - I do not see any prefix conflict. SR labels (entire range) will be blocked for X. Cheers, R. On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:09 AM, tech_kals Kals <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Les, > > Sorry, I have not included my mapping entries in the previous mail. > Please see the example here below. > > I am working with the RFC which doesn't support *Preference Value, *so > please ignore it. And, my mapping entries would looks like. > Topology will be a single topology, not a Multi-topology and algorithm > would be SPF not CSPF. > > Please read my entry the below order: *<Prefix-start/ prefix-len, > starting SID, range>* > * E1 and E2 already configured Active entries. X is the newly incoming > entry.* > > > *Scenario 1: (Entries are conflicting with prefix)* > Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24 > <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>* > Entry *E2: <10.1.1.0/24 > <http://10.1.1.0/24>, 150, 5>* > > * incoming entry is X:* > * Entry X: <10.1.2.0/24 > <http://10.1.2.0/24>, 200, 20>* > > * Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.* > > * Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.* > > * # what are the entries would be active and what will become > inactive/**excluded entry ?* > > > > *Scenario 2: **(Entries are conflicting with SID)* > Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24 > <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>* > Entry *E2: <7.1.1.0/24 <http://7.1.1.0/24>, > 280, 10>* > > * incoming entry is X:* > * Entry X: <3.1.1.0/24 <http://3.1.1.0/24>, > 285, 20>* > > * Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.* > > * Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.* > > * # what are the entries would be active and what will become > inactive/**excluded entry ?* > > > *Scenario 3: **(Entries are conflicting with prefix and SID)* > > Entry *E1: <10.1.10.0/24 > <http://10.1.10.0/24>, 300, 22>* > Entry *E2: <5.1.1.0/24 <http://5.1.1.0/24>, > 190, 15>* > > * incoming entry is X:* > * Entry X: <10.1.1.0/24 > <http://10.1.1.0/24>, 200, 20>* > > * Step1: Conflict would be validated between E1 and X.* > > * Step2: Conflict would be validated between E2 and X.* > > *# what are the entries would be active and what will become > inactive/**excluded entry ?* > > > *Regards,* > *__tech.kals__* > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> It is not possible to answer your query because the way you have >> presented your entries (X, E1, E2, E3) does not tell us what conflicts you >> have. >> >> Do you have two SIDs assigned to the same prefix? (Prefix conflict) >> >> Do you have the same SID assigned to two different prefixes? (SID >> conflict) >> >> >> >> This matters – see Section 3.3.6 of the draft for an example as to why. >> >> >> >> Please present your example in the form defined in Section 3: >> >> >> >> Prf - Preference Value (See Section 3.1) >> >> Pi - Initial prefix >> >> Pe - End prefix >> >> L - Prefix length >> >> Lx - Maximum prefix length (32 for IPv4, 128 for IPv6) >> >> Si - Initial SID value >> >> Se - End SID value >> >> R - Range value (See Note 1) >> >> T - Topology >> >> A - Algorithm >> >> >> >> A Mapping Entry is then the tuple: (Prf, Src, Pi/L, Si, R, T, A) >> >> >> >> Thanx. >> >> >> >> Les >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tech_kals Kals [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:22 PM >> *To:* [email protected]; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Peter Psenak (ppsenak); >> Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); [email protected] >> *Subject:* [Mapping Server] Conflict Resolution >> >> >> >> Hi Experts, >> >> >> >> Could you please explain me what would be the expected behavior in the >> following scenario in *Quarantine approach*. >> >> >> >> Mapping entries *E1, E2, E3 *are Active entries. >> >> >> >> In case, if incoming new entry say *X *which has conflict with *E1, E2 >> and E3.* >> >> >> >> Assume, *X is better than E1 but not better than E2. ( E1 < X < E2)* >> >> >> >> * 1] X is better than E1 so E1 will become excluded entry and X will >> become an active entry* >> >> >> >> * 2] Now, X is compared with E2. E2 is better than X. So, X will become >> excluded entry and E2 is an active entry as it was.* >> >> >> >> *So, X and E1 will become "excluded entry".* >> >> >> >> *I couldn't find any info as shown above in the RFC. Can you please >> clarify ?* >> >> >> >> >> >> *My doubts:* >> >> *1) Will the entry become active only if it wins with all entries which >> are conflicted with this ?* >> >> *2) When doing conflict resolution with other entries, it can win with >> some entries and can lose to some? What could be the behavior ? * >> >> * - This is the case which I explained above.* >> >> * - In this case, X can become active by winning to E1 and lose E2 >> which leads X and E1 to become inactive/excluded entry.* >> >> >> >> >> >> can you please clarify ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> __tech.kals__ >> > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
