Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

[[e-mail]]

Les,

> We don’t have to resolve this now.
> One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG adoption is achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation request – and as one of the Designated Experts I wanted to share my concerns sooner rather than later.


I appreciate that.  Do others share Les’ perspective on the relative tradeoffs?  Especially our other Desginated Experts?


> Would this argue for advertising “this is a boundary circuit” in pseudo-node LSPs for boundary circuits rather than advertising “inside” on all inside pseudo-nodes?
>   
> You could do it that way.  It inverts the semantics and inverts the deployment.  Logically, it should have the same effect.  However, it then is seen by outside nodes.  Since they need not support Area Proxy, this seemed like a riskier approach, thus we opted for marking inside pseudonodes.
>  
> [Les:] My point was largely motivated by the statement in the draft:
>  
> “Area Proxy Boundary multi-access circuits (i.e.  Ethernets in LAN
>    mode) with multiple Inside Edge Routers on them are not supported.”
>  
> So it seems advantageous to be able to prevent this from happening – which requires some signaling on the circuit in question.



I think that the case that you’re concerned about is already easily detected.  Recall that an Inside Edge router will generate IIH’s onto a boundary circuit using the Proxy system ID.  Thus, if an Inside Edge router receives an IIH with a source address of it’s own proxy system id, then it has encountered this issue.

Tony