Hi Rajesh,
On 10/09/2020 03:38, Rajesh M wrote:
Hi All,
*Section 4.1.21:*
**
In control plane uA SID is advertised with value 2001:db8:0:*0N00:FNAJ::*
**
*in FIB entry it is represent with value *2001:db8:0*:FNAJ::/64*
Note: From a formal viewpoint, a uA SID of node N is defined by the
local FIB entry B:uA/64 of N (i.e. this definition is independent from
any uN SID of node N).
a) why such discrepancy ? between control plane and forwarding plane.
It's explained in the section 4.1.2.1:
"In order to signal in ISIS a container SID with the same routable
semantics as End.X"
In other words, we wanted to keep the consistency in a way the SID is
advertised for different SID types (e.g. END.X and uA).
thanks,
Peter
b) for uA SID Forwarding happens based upon 2001:db8:0/48 ? not based
upon 2001:db8:0:*0N00 (uN SID) ?*
**uSID block: 2001:db8:0::/48**
**for uA SID if forwarding is based upon**2001:db8:0/48 then
Compressed-SID can be 16 bit
for uA SID if forwarding is based upon**2001:db8:0:*0N00 then
*Compressed-SID must be 32 bit**
**
Thanks
Rajesh
**
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
