IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBC621E81D1; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:05:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.942, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AiV7JTq7A-Oq; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302DC11E81B4; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AXR63265; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:04:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:04:08 +0000
Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:04:53 +0000
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.193]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 04:04:46 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing
Thread-Index: Ac7cBOuuRGeZzkraQJWpEDg6hpTODv//ltYAgACPRrz//3/TAIAAkrMGgACwmICAAIelwA==
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:04:45 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227A99@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0822770A@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527C2606.5060906@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082277AB@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527C32B0.5070101@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082277D4@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527D41E3.1050008@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <527D41E3.1050008@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.129.94]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:05:06 -0000

Hi Peter,

Sure. However, why not borrow the idea of longest-matching algorithm proposed in that RFC to SR?

BR,
Xiaohu

________________________________________
发件人: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2013年11月9日 3:56
收件人: Xuxiaohu
抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing

Xiaohu,

there is no LDP in the SR network, so RFC5283 is not applicable.

thanks,
Peter

On 11/7/13 17:28 , Xuxiaohu wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> The 'longest-match algorithm' for LIB installation has been proposed by RFC5283.
>
> Best regards,
> Xiaohu
>
> ________________________________________
> 发件人: Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com]
> 发送时间: 2013年11月8日 8:39
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing
>
> Xiaohu,
>
> On 11/7/13 16:23 , Xuxiaohu wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peter,
> ]
>> if you aggregate on area/L1L2 boundary, SIDs/labels for individual
>> prefixes that are covered by the aggregate are useless in the area to
>> which you aggregate - there will be no FIB entries for these individual
>> prefixes in such area. So if you aggregate, there is no need to
>> propagate SIDs/labels for aggregated prefixes.
>>
>> [Xiaohu] "In the multi-area/level
>>      scenario where route summary between areas/levels is required, the IP
>>      longest-match algorithm SHOULD be used by SR-capable routers when
>>      processing label bindings advertised by the mapping server" For more details, please read the Introduction section of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00
>
> I don't understand. If you summarize, then only the summary prefix will
> be visible in the backbone (and remote areas) and installed in the FIB
> on all routers in these areas.
>
> Where would you apply 'longest-match algorithm' when you only see the
> single summary? How would you use the SID/label for prefixes that are
> covered by the summary?
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email