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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 29 December 2014 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 DBA591A000C; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:05:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 fGRrcTgwRqLh; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8572E1A000F; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:05:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=647; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1419840325; x=1421049925; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r8bHNaQ0xvqZ63sUaUd4jUbh2fibHZP2eOzeKwGF9mA=; b=iFM8aS6mG1Kt/Wi2EpTtB796Aqpoa2voi2BroVy7hTnMe3ELPDIYei4P 3BN1mSrqc2pPFgpFMSJB15icXJ6qlVtrcaO7WGKhRzrbLzeE0Ez8TszP4 e2K44JlBLI8PVnhD0pNkxi7uKz1mvQzHoPwE0eyyHSy9pWaL4B8fEBYBS 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsAEAM0KoVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABcg1hYxmYKhXMCgSEBAQEBAX2EDQEBBAEBAS8BBTYKARALGAkWDwkDAgECARUwBgEMAQUCAQGIKA3EewEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEjwwaAQFPB4QpAQSXCIYEi0wig289MYEMgTcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,659,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="286614479"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2014 08:05:10 +0000
Received: from [10.61.76.181] (ams3-vpn-dhcp3253.cisco.com [10.61.76.181]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBT8599b026342; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:05:09 GMT
Message-ID: <54A10B35.4030301@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:05:09 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "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>
References: <BY1PR0501MB13819883015276791F20D631D5540@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR0501MB13819883015276791F20D631D5540@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/HKhawpx4evxuTsiBPs28-NlkMmA
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: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:05:40 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:05:40 -0000

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
>