Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

[Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the responses.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 28, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > - pg 5, line 1
> >   What is the criteria that allow sharing the AS number?  Is there a
> reference?
>
>
> we changed this to “use the same AS”. As explained in 4.3, using the same
> AS brings the update loop prevention mechanism so facilitate filtering and
> propagation.
>
>
I think your response is about the spine/leaf nodes.  My comment is about
the ToR nodes.


>
> > - pg 7
> >   "local label 1600x" -> "local label (16000 + x).
> >   Also because of the way loopbacks are assigned, does this mean that
> the number nodes that this scheme can handle is 512?  May be good to
> mention why this is considered a good number.
>
>
> the example assumes loopbacks assigned from 192.0.2/24. It gives you 255
> host addresses. This is of course just illustrative.
>

It may be good to mention explicitly that the numbers used are
illustrative.  I did not get that impression when reading the draft.

>
>
> > - pg 11
> >   "BGP Prefix Segment 16011 then directs the packet down to Node11 along
> the path (Node5, Node9, Node11)."
> >   I think it would be worth mentioning that node 9 need not appear in
> this path.  In general, because of the nature of clos topologies, there is
> no need to have intermediate nodes between the spine and the ToR on the way
> down.  (If there is, it would be good to know why.)
>
>
> maybe I’m missing your point but the example is baed on the illustrative
> topology where 9 in the shortest path but you don’t need to specify 9 in
> the segment list. This is base of SR explained in the architecture draft.
>
>
Yes, that is indeed my point. I think it would be better to remove it and
have a statement that says why it doesn't appear pointing to the arch doc.

Thanks,
Anoop