Re: [Idr] draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-00

Hi,

There is a use case for sending the SRGB of a router in ISIS (e.g. ti-lfa)
What is the use case of having a BGP speaker send its SRGB to its peer 
in a BGP-only deployment?

Ahmed

On 11/13/2014 7:10 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In BGP-LS-SR SRGB is encoded in SR Capabilities TLV (1034).
> However today it comes from an IGP, e.g. Is ISIS case from SR 
> Capabilities sub-TLV of Router Capability TLV, so BGP only case should 
> be added.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
> From: <Henderickx>, Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com 
> <mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>>
> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2014 at 4:24 PM
> To: "idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>" <idr@ietf.org 
> <mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [Idr] draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-00
>
>     The new BGP-Prefix-SID Label Index attribute avoids to pack routes
>     in a single BGP update. I believe the authors did this for
>     backward compatibility with RFC3107, etc +  the environment this
>     is meant for does not need to scale to Millions of prefixes with
>     this attribute. The result is that BGP NLRI(s) cannot be grouped
>     in a single BGP update packet since the index is unique per
>     prefix. We should clarify this because some environments might not
>     cope with this very well.
>
>     Also I believe the solution should accommodate the ability to add
>     multiple label blocks since we will never know up front how many
>     prefixes we will allocate and things change, so operationally I
>     believe this will be required.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr