Les -
in-line
...
>
> Although I will certainly consider the additional response you seem to
> have hinted at in your reply to Peter, it seems to me that Section 6 of
> your draft acknowledges that there is a scaling problem
[Uma]: What it says is there is no scale issue in certain deployments
where only limited number of pats are required (examples given). In that
case you don't need any *further extensions* as referred.
As we noted this is fully backward compatible for SR-MPLS and
SRH data planes and one can go ahead and use it one can't find a path and
SID depth is an issue (in terms of any of these, HW compatibility, Line
rate, header tax or MTU).
> - and then references what seems to be a non-existent draft (I could not
> find "draft-ce-ppr-graph-00" ???) as a proposed solution.
>
[Uma]: This will be posted soon, few things are being worked out. This
helps in certain cases (you will see soon), where you want to scale
optimized paths.
>
> In any further response you make it would be good if you did indicate
> whether you agree PPR has a scaling issue -
[Uma]: Plz see above..
> Thanx.
>
> Les
>
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
