Hi Joel, I think this is a good point that may not be discussed in the past. And I also don't think there is a "can be bypassed" indication in the routing advertisement for now.
IMHO, the information advertised by routing is neutral, such information (can or cannot be bypassed) is more path specific, thus normally the controller should be responsible for deciding whether/which SID can be bypassed. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern > Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 7:51 AM > To: spring@ietf.org > Subject: [spring] Spring protection - determining applicability > > (WG Chair hat Off, this is merely a note from a slightly confused WG > participant.) > > I have been reading the various repair drafts, and the various networks > programming and service programming draft, and I am trying to figure out > one aspect of the combination. > > How does a node that is doing some form of bypass (suppose, for simplicity, > it is Node N2 deciding to bypass the next SID for a failed node N3) know that > it is safe to do so? > > If the path was just for TE, then it is "safe" if the new path meets the TE > criteria. or maybe it is safe if it is even close, as long as it is not used > for too > long. > > But what if the node were a Firewall, included to meet legal requirements? > Or was some other necessary programmatic transform (wince we are > deliberately vague about what nodes can do when asked suitably.) > > Is there some "can be bypassed" indication in the routing advertisements > that I missed? > > Thank you, > Yours, > Joel > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
