On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > On 22 May 2018 at 17:43, steve ulrich <sulr...@botwerks.org> wrote: > > Hey, > > > sorry, yes. i was referring to SRTE wrt the pop operation. > > Yup RSVP=>SR is more ambiguous and debatable than LDP=>SR which is > unambiguous win. > > > not labels but they are encoded as labels. i hope operators have the > option > > to configure common/consistent label ranges, but i don't necessarily > assume > > it. tooling to resolve this will be required just as in the LDP world. > > I've not had this tooling in LDP world, and not anticipating to need > it in SR world. But maybe I'm missing something, what kind of > information do you need in LDP world which you need to develop tooling > for, and how does the problem+solution translate to SR world? >
in the day's of yore, i know a few folks who built tooling to validate and/or detect failure to sync between the IGP and LDP or detect data plane black holing behaviors caused by resolution in the RIB w/no complementary label allocation (or LDP convergence lagging significantly). implementations have come a long way since then. but yeah, IGP-LDP sync lag has been a thing for some folks. in a world of anycast/prefix-SIDs some of this doesn't necessarily go away, it just looks kind of different. though to be fair, this alignment improves (the IGP/LDP convergence sync case goes away) for all the reasons you've cited previously in this thread. -- steve ulrich (sulrich@botwerks.*)
