Re: Do we really need to add state into each packet ...

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the clarification.


Just one clarification to your response. IP-TE + NP proposal does not
> require BGP only network. Not at all. Network can run IGP as today, may or
> may not run any BGP based services.
>
Right.
I guess, I misunderstood earlier, as P nodes don't run BGP (generally). Per
draft,  if segment endpoint is a P node then it is required to run BGP.
You also indicated PCE (PCE-CC ?) usage as alternative approach (section 5).


All I am stating in the draft is that one option to signal the translation
> state is to leverage existing protocol extension "Advertising Segment
> Routing Policies in  BGP", but this is just an option - not a requirement
> of any sort to make the proposal work.
>


Sure.  Got it now.  Shall go through this more thoroughly.

Any ways, as the title of the thread, yes,  there are many ways to do this
(each with it's own strengths) with out including the state in each packet.

But there are cases where per packet information is useful too (NP and
additional non-path info..).
--
Uma C.




>>>