Les, > You need to allow that not everything in the world is identified by an IP/IPv6 address.
Thought we are talking about WAN networks here and not about the world :) > assign a common anycast address on all nodes. First not all nodes need to participate here. At most ABRs. Then if you already have a summary route from a given area - you do not need to invent anything else - area summary routes are effectively area prefixes. And in fact last time I checked routable too. > I can associate the SID with an identifier Do you ping SID or IP address ? Maybe time for examples. What would be your MPLS area SID format ? How about SRv6 SID format for the same ? Bottom line I think we must not lock ourselves into single transport technology - that's all I am after here. Thx, Robert. On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:56 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert – > > > > You need to allow that not everything in the world is identified by an > IP/IPv6 address. > > > > If you want an IP address shared by all nodes in an area there is already > a mean of doing that: assign a common anycast address on all nodes. > > > > The value add (if there is any) of an Area SID is that I don’t have to > assign an anycast address to all nodes. I can associate the SID with an > identifier that is already shared and known by all nodes in the area. > > If you don’t see that as worthwhile, fine, let’s abandon the Area SID idea. > > > > Les > > > > > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, August 03, 2020 10:47 AM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02.txt > > > > Hi Les, > > > > Well I am talking about IP routable identifier which I can place on the > front of the packet and which can assure that the packet will arrive at > given area. > > > > Then Area SID becomes analogy of Node SID :) > > > > Thx > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:40 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Robert – > > > > Both OSPF and IS-IS have area identifiers which are advertised. > > Why would we need to invent another identifier for an area? > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, August 03, 2020 10:31 AM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-02.txt > > > > *Les,* > > > > *> But currently the draft is defining a SID which is NOT associated with > a prefix.* > > + > > > *But if the proposal is to use a SID associated with a prefix then I > see no need to invent a new SID advertisement.* > > > > How about we first define an "Area Prefix" (IP address being a property of > an area) then assign SID to it ? > > > > - - - > > > > How odd it may sound I would like to still be able to direct traffic (read > ip tunnel) traffic to an area without any SID. > > > > Thx, > R. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
