Sasha, 1. Where did I say it is a requirement ? My quote was precise and it clearly said that this is recommended.
2. Nothing in this thread requires use of domain-wide labels. All required functionality will work just fine with domain-wide indexes - so even we I or anyone one else said here anything about "domain-wide labels" fell free to substitute it with "domain-wide index" if this will make you happy. 3. To constructively move fwd let me propose we drop SR-MPLS all together from support of spray or fan-out functionality in the charter and just make sure charter reflect such support for SRv6 only. Now let's sit and watch how the proponents of index based offset instead of global SRGB will react if MPLS based network will miss such useful functionality :) Cheers, R. On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Alexander Vainshtein < [email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > I think that you have cut the quoted text from the Segment Routing > Architecture > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15> draft > a bit too short. The complete fragment says: > > > > Where possible, it is recommended that identical SRGBs be configured > > on all nodes in an SR Domain. This simplifies troubleshooting as the > > same label will be associated with the same prefix on all nodes. In > > addition, it simplifies support for anycast as detailed in > > Section 3.3 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15#section-3.3> > . > > > > In other words, the Segment Routing Architecture draft: > > - Does not consider identical SRGBs on all nodes in an SR domain > as a requirement. > > - Explains that such configuration, if used, simplifies > troubleshooting and support of anycast segments. With regard to the latter, > please note that the Anycast Segments > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-02> > draft defines a mechanism that facilitates usage of anycast segments in an > environment with different SRGBs on different nodes. > > > > Therefore, from my POV, domain-wide labels have been purged (for quite > some time now) from the SR-MPLS architecture. I do not think that they > should be re-introduced. > > > > My 2c, > > Sasha >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
