Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> Sun, 04 January 2015 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5E51A01EC; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:54:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DgafpSTw5dlM; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31F381A017C; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:54:34 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79376d000000ceb-19-54a972f7e8a6
Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A3.3D.03307.8F279A45; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:06:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 17:54:31 -0500
From: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AQHQKD6itXjt0kLlZUCU8+NFWsGwXJyw2PGA//+HWgA=
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 22:54:30 +0000
Message-ID: <D0CEFC3B.86263%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
References: <D0CF6C5B.1B6DD%psarkar@juniper.net> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EEA26EF@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EEA26EF@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <716BEB4F06AFC446A78A210913003124@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrLIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrO6PopUhBmvnSVgsXvCK3eJcQzur xYY/G9ktjh56z2rRcu8eu8WO3e1sFlf2fGayuPFoL7MDh8eU3xtZPZYs+cnkcb3pKrvHl8uf 2QJYorhsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyJnW/Zil42s1Y8XzGSqYGxoMlXYycHBICJhINT7YzQdhiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBI4wihxccIuRghnGaPEnn0rGEGq2AQMJP5/O84CkhARWMsssfbbYjaQBLOAl8Si uzfAbGGBSImOb99YQWwRgSiJUzPfMkPYVhL7f+0Dsjk4WARUJDrvR4CYvALmEt9XJYNUCAkU S5w43gZ2EKeAr0TDzpdgaxmBjvt+ag0TxCZxiVtP5kMdLSCxZM95ZghbVOLl439gW0UF9CSe bdjMDhFXkvj4ez47RK+exI2pU6AutpZYPfMaM4StLbFs4Wswm1dAUOLkzCcsExglZiFZNwtJ +ywk7bOQtM9C0r6AkXUVI0dpcWpZbrqRwSZGYPwek2DT3cG456XlIUYBDkYlHt4PT1aECLEm lhVX5h5ilOZgURLnnVU7L1hIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+qDQntfgQIxMHp1QD4zTzcyq9fI87lSS2 vPH+veHPK12m4+e317DMKbzFm5q0Zt9523hbyZQ+YYGkzU6NLJqGlhw8ch0vmJs4hVZwBPW0 b5h6IJNhzQPH1Q+ObOhw60wxktZaxyeSFB7yO5FpXaTonBn2Sd5Lmf7+3n9yTnAfm5/t27ZZ eyZP2MvvIiQTuusht5OmEktxRqKhFnNRcSIAEWH/LcACAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/8mdcXcsccXuwNQ9llDwxU-7qG3I
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 22:54:38 -0000

Hi,

I¹ll try to address some of the questions discussed.

I think it would be really helpful to distinguish between transport and
service protection, as well as path (at ingress) vs node/link (local)
protection
Wrt manageability of LFA, it also applies to rLFA/TI-LFA - I¹d recommend
to look into draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability which has recently
completed wglc in rtgwg.
As you could see and as Les has mentioned - it is LFA computation which
could include constrains and provide a backup path which meets particular
constrains and since it is per-prefix (in most implementations) traffic
towards different destinations could take different backup paths when
primary fails.

Let¹s leave multidomain path protection aside

Path protection - backup path is provided by an entity (CSPF/PCE) which
has full visibility within the domain it is calculated for. Usual
requirement for such path is that it has to be disjoined from the primary,
so failure of the primary path would not affect the backup path, it is up
to ingress node (local policy) to provide different backup paths for
different FEC¹s in case of failure of the primary path. The path could
have mix of node-sid and adj-sid depending on how the path is constructed.

Local protection - as the name suggests - it is local to the node it
provide protection at, providing protection for a particular destination
is a local decision (same as done today for LFA), I don¹t see a need for a
flag local to the node.
Might you want particular destination not to be protected (or to be
protected over a particular backup) it is up to the node protection it
taking place at to do so(local).

Cheers,
Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: "Les Ginsberg   (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Date: Sunday, January 4, 2015 at 2:07 PM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>et>, Shraddha Hegde
<shraddha@juniper.net>et>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>om>,
"draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>rg>,
"draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

>Pushpasis -
>
>I don't agree.
>
>The use of one node-sid vs another has nothing whatever to do with the
>request Shraddha has made i.e. should we introduce a flag indicating
>whether a particular prefix should be protected or not. A node-sid only
>dictates what (intermediate) node traffic should be sent to - not what
>link(s) are used to reach that node.
>
>Adjacency-sids have a different semantic - they identify the link over
>which traffic is to be forwarded. Identifying an adjacency-sid as
>unprotected means traffic will NEVER flow over a different link. There is
>no equivalent behavior w a node-sid - which is what this discussion has
>been about.
>
>   Les
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:psarkar@juniper.net]
>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 8:51 AM
>To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde; Peter Psenak (ppsenak);
>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.orgorg;
>draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>
>Hi Les,
>
>I think the requirement Shraddha is referring is about the choice of
>exact node-sid to use while constructing the label-stack for a
>explicit-LSP on the ingress router, which will be typically done after
>running some CSPF on the SPRING topology. And not the IGP on ingress or
>transit routers.
>
>Thanks
>-Pushpasis
>
>On 1/3/15, 3:10 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>Shraddha -
>>
>>IGPs today do NOT perform constraint based SPFs - so I don't know why
>>you believe that the primary SPF will meet a set of constraints that an
>>LFA calculation will not. In fact , it is the opposite which is true
>>because implementations today do support preferences in choosing LFAs
>>based on various configured policy - something which is NOT done for
>>primary SPF.
>>
>>If you want a certain class of traffic to avoid a subset of the links
>>in the topology then you need to have a way of identifying the links
>>(NOT the node addresses) and a way of calculating a path which only
>>uses the links which meet the constraints of that class of service.
>>Identifying a particular prefix as protected or unprotected won't
>>achieve that.
>>
>>   Les
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:shraddha@juniper.net]
>>Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 10:54 AM
>>To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Peter Psenak (ppsenak);
>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.orgtf.org;
>>draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>
>>Hi Les/Peter,
>>
>>      When reconvergence happens, the primary path will be calculated
>>based on all constriants.
>>This is not true with the protection path.Protection path is calculated
>>locally (LFA/RLFA)  and does not consider the characteristics of the
>>services running on that path.
>>It's easier for some services to pick the unprotected path when the
>>nature of the service is that it can be restarted  when there is a
>>disconnection.
>>
>>Rgds
>>Shraddha
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com]
>>Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 10:06 PM
>>To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak); Shraddha Hegde;
>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.orgtf.org;
>>draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>
>>Peter -
>>
>>The requirement Shraddha specified was to not allow a particular class
>>of service ("heavy bandwidth services" was the example provided) to use
>>certain links in the topology. My point is that advertising a flag for
>>a given prefix which says "do not calculate a repair path for this
>>prefix"
>>does not help achieve this. Once the network reconverges following the
>>failure of one of the links on which "heavy bandwidth services" is
>>allowed/preferred it is quite likely that the new best path will be
>>over a link on which "heavy bandwidth services" is NOT
>>allowed/preferred. This will happen whether you have the new flag or
>>not - so the flag will have no lasting effect. It would only affect
>>traffic flow during the brief period during which the network is
>>reconverging.
>>
>>I think you and I are actually in agreement - I am simply sending a
>>stronger negative message - not only do I think the flag is not useful
>>- I think it does not achieve the goal Shraddha has in mind.
>>
>>   Les
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
>>Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 12:18 AM
>>To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde;
>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.orgtf.org;
>>draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>
>>Hi Les,
>>
>>I believe the idea is not to exclude any particular link, it's actually
>>much simpler - do not calculate backup for the prefix if the flag is set.
>>
>>I'm still not quite sure how useful above is, but technically it is
>>possible.
>>
>>thanks,
>>Peter
>>
>>On 12/30/14 17:22 , Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>> Shraddha -
>>>
>>> When performing a best path calculation whether a given link is in
>>>the set of best paths (to be protectedED) or not (could be used as a
>>>protectING path) is a function of the topology - not the link.  If
>>>there is a topology change it is quite likely that a given link will
>>>change from being a protectED link to being a protectING link (or vice
>>>versa).
>>>So what you propose regarding node-SIDs would not work.
>>>
>>> In the use case you mention below if you don't want a certain class
>>>of traffic to flow on a given link it requires a link attribute which
>>>is persistent across topology changes. There are ways to do that -
>>>using Adj-SIDs is one of them. But using node-SIDs in the way you
>>>propose is NOT.
>>>
>>>     Les
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:12 PM
>>> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak);
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>>> The requirement here is to get an un-protected path for services
>>>>which do not want to divert the traffic on protected path in any case.
>>>
>>>> can you give an example of such a service and a reasoning why such
>>>>service would want to avoid local protection along the path?
>>>
>>> Heavy bandwidth services are potential candidates.  The network is
>>>well planned and well provisioned for primary path but same is not
>>>true for backup paths.
>>> Diverting heavy bandwidth services along protection path can disrupt
>>>the other services on that path, they are better-off un-protected so
>>>that an event in the network Would result in disconnection and a retry
>>>for such services.
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>> Shraddha
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:35 PM
>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>
>>> Shraddha,
>>>
>>> On 12/29/14 10:06 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>> Peter,
>>>>
>>>> The requirement here is to get an un-protected path for services
>>>>which do not want to divert the traffic on protected path in any case.
>>>
>>> can you give an example of such a service and a reasoning why such
>>>service would want to avoid local protection along the path?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>> So when the originator of node-sid signals un-protected path
>>>>requirement, there is always an unprotected path.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the protected path, it is the default behavior as it
>>>>exists today. You get protection if it's available otherwise you
>>>>don't get protection.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, you can have the new flag to say "NP flag" meaning
>>>>non-protected flag which can be set for the unprotected path.
>>>> By default it remains off and gives the behavior as it exists today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rgds
>>>> Shraddha
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:26 PM
>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>>
>>>> Shraddha,
>>>>
>>>> I do not see how an originator of the node-sid can mandate a
>>>>protection for the prefix on other routers. What if there is no
>>>>backup available on a certain node along the path?
>>>>
>>>> The parallel with the B-flag in adj-sids is not right - in case of
>>>>adj-sid the originator has the knowledge about the local adjacency
>>>>protection and as such can signal it it it's LSA.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/29/14 09:47 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pls see inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rgds
>>>>> Shraddha
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 2:02 PM
>>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>>>
>>>>> Shraddha,
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see how an originator can set any flag regarding the
>>>>>protection of the locally attached prefix.
>>>>> <Shraddha> The originator advertises 2 node-sids. One with p flag
>>>>>set and the other without the p-flag set.
>>>>>
>>>>>     It's all the routers on the path towards such prefix that need
>>>>>to deal with the protection.
>>>>> <Shraddha> The receiving nodes will download protected path for the
>>>>>node-sid with p-flag set and download Unprotected path for the
>>>>>node-sid with p-flag unset.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signaling anything from the originator seems useless.
>>>>> <Shraddha>  For node-sids it's the others who need to build the
>>>>>forwarding plane but it's only the originator who can signal which of
>>>>>                            Sid need to be built with protection and
>>>>>which not. Other routers on the path cannot signal this information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With this you have two paths for the node. One is protected and the
>>>>>other is unprotected. This meets the requirement of having an
>>>>>un-protected path.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very much in parallel to B-flag in adj-sids. It is similar to
>>>>>advertising multiple adj-sids one with B-flag on and other with
>>>>>b-flag off , to get protected and unprotected Adj-sids.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/29/14 09:26 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>>>> Yes.You are right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets say a prefix sid has a flag "p flag". If this is on it means
>>>>>>build a path and provide protection.
>>>>>> If this is off it means build a path with no protection.
>>>>>> The receivers of the prefix-sid will build forwarding plane based
>>>>>>on this flag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The applications building the paths will either use prefix-sids
>>>>>>with p flag on or off based on the need of the service.
>>>>>> Rgds
>>>>>> Shraddha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:49 PM
>>>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shraddha,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can
>>>>>>not advertise any data regarding the protection of such prefix,
>>>>>>because the prefix is locally attached.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and
>>>>>>>while  building such a path if the node-sids Need to be used (one
>>>>>>>reason  could be label stack compression) , then there has to be
>>>>>>>unprotected node-sid that this service can make use of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service
>>>>>>>endpoints which makes it even more relevant to have A means of
>>>>>>>representing  unprotected paths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rgds
>>>>>>> Shraddha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM
>>>>>>> To: Shraddha Hegde;
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
>>>>>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shraddha,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is
>>>>>>>directly attached to it. Protection for such local prefix does not
>>>>>>>mean much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>>> We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the
>>>>>>>> label is protected or not.
>>>>>>>> Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to
>>>>>>>> indicate whether the node-sid is to be protected or not.
>>>>>>>> Any thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>> Rgds
>>>>>>>> Shraddha
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Isis-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OSPF mailing list
>>OSPF@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf