Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 05 January 2015 05:53 UTC
Return-Path: <ginsberg@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 DFE431A1BB8; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:53:25 -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 pPyhAeFtrM0y; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 544171A1BAF; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:53:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19363; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1420437201; x=1421646801; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NrLb594qnU9iXFIbF48adAbsSpbZ4nNsWZcnfVrHDWE=; b=Gl21zbB481fd8zWhA3P1KT+w8IZJCOBWT8ZE/xDREsO/qYPBRJjvP3bf PnBjqwLdcifPjo2kir+YvAacwjbl2Q1CRi1x6JAwM0di3hBygYXiap4bR VKFaNQxhXj+9AiXIlLlDGXirfuWedHGLFhbGesD99lPg10K+V2cpWFD5S M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlUFAEAmqlStJV2P/2dsb2JhbABSCoJkIlJYBMYPCoVxAoEDFgEBAQEBfYQMAQEBAwEBAQEJWwcLDAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKHQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCIgcCAEMu1MBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBIoNhH8IBwsBAR4GJgUHAgSDEIETBY4VigCCZY1eIoNub4EMOX4BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,697,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="110287875"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jan 2015 05:53:19 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t055rJ4l022553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 05:53:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 23:53:19 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: 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>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AQHQKD6iXwJtxV0x9USUyWdQCc/JgZywgAqQgADVtYD//6sHQA==
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 05:53:18 +0000
Message-ID: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EEA29A2@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <D0CF6C5B.1B6DD%psarkar@juniper.net> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F4EEA26EF@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <D0D00E58.1B720%psarkar@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <D0D00E58.1B720%psarkar@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.24.203.199]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ist8AkpmBzMQI7Vh1rnbT4xCT5c
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, 05 Jan 2015 05:53:26 -0000
Pushpasis - The key point is that the proposal does not have any lasting impact on traffic flow. A simple topology should suffice to illustrate this. A----B----C----D | | E----F (All links have the same cost) Suppose we wish to have traffic entering at A flow along the path A-B-C-D - but if the link B---C fails we do NOT want traffic to take the path B--E--F--C. You propose to have C advertise an address with two node-sids - one which allows protection - call it C(P) - and one which does NOT allow protection - call it C(NP). If the label stack specifies C(NP) - then while the link B--C is UP everything works as desired (primary path to C(NP) on Node B is via link B-C). However, when the link B--C goes down, the network will reconverge and in a modest amount of time the new primary path to C(NP) on node B will be via link B-E. The existence of C(NP) therefore only affects traffic flow during the reconvergence period i.e. if we assume B did NOT install a repair path for C(NP) traffic will be dropped only until a new primary path is calculated. I don’t see the value in this. As a (somewhat dangerous) aside, the functionality you are looking for is more akin to "not-via" as defined in RFC 6981 - though I am quick to add that I am NOT proposing to pursue that. :-) But reading that RFC might give you more insight into why simply setting "don't protect" for a prefix isn't useful for the purpose you have in mind. Les -----Original Message----- From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:psarkar@juniper.net] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 8:34 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde; Peter Psenak (ppsenak); draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; Hannes Gredler Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions Hi Les, Please find comments inline.. Authors, Here is my proposal. Please let me know if this sounds reasonable or not. - A new ŒNo-Potection-Required¹ or ŒNP¹ flag be added to the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV/TLV. Setting this flag means none of the transit routers should try to protect this node-segment. - Let nodes advertise two node-sid-index each (per address-family), one without and one with ŒNP¹ flag set. For node-sid advertised with ŒNP¹ flag 0, routers same behave the same way as today. But when they receive a node-sid with ŒNP¹ flag set, they avoid/skip finding a backup for that segment. - Finally ingress servers or TE-applications may use these 'node-sids with NP-flag set¹ for use cases where it is better to drop traffic on topology outages rather than diverting it to some other paths. For such cases ingress router or TE-applications should look for node-sids with ŒNP¹ flag set and not the regular node-sids. For all other normal use cases(including L3VPN/6VPE etc) traffic should be carried using node-sid without ŒNP‹flag set. Thanks and Regards, -Pushpasis On 1/5/15, 3:37 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: >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. [Pushpasis] This is not about which links to take. It is about wether transit routers should try to protect the node-segment to the this node-sid or not. I think this opens up a lot many number of possibilities on the ingress router and TE controller-based applications. > >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. [Pushpasis] I am not trying to draw a parallel between this new flag and the ŒB¹ flag in Adj-Sid SubTlv. Like said before > > 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.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 > >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.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.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.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] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-rou… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Mitchell Erblich
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Rob Shakir
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… bruno.decraene
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… bruno.decraene
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-os… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)