Hi Sasha,
Agree. This is not the topic about to adopt a draft or not. I also support the
adoption. :)
Regarding the not bypassable flag for prefix SID, thanks for your input. Will
update the draft after we have enough discussion in the mailing list. Seems
like we are heading to the same direct
It all hinges on "useable next hops". If the connected next hop
(a bgp next hop may not be connected) has a correct route for the
packet, then it is useable.
One more consideration: With the BGP free core, external devices
cannot send packets to your internal routers. Once you allow to
forward pac
Hi PSF,
limiting the "forward unlabelled" behavior to packets with the
bottom-of-stack bit set is an interesting idea. I haven't though about
that yet. In my case that would definitely help and be perfectly ok.
Best regards, Martin
Am 28.08.20 um 05:31 schrieb peng.sha...@zte.com.cn:
Hi
Hi Robert,
the setup I sketched does not cover double failures nor 100 % of all
topological cases for forwarding.
And in fact, forwarding the traffic is not the main purpose. The main
purpose it to DETECT the failure in a useful way.
For the same reason we would sure not want to add yet anoth
Cheng and all,
A few short comments.
1. I support the idea to mark some IGP Prefix SIDs as "not bypassable"
2. I think that, while such marking is not yet available the neighbors of a
node that advertises itself as a "stub node" in IGP MAY use this as a hint that
Node SIDs advertised by
