Hi Tarek,
1) it's a good question what to do label stack has more than one label
left, e.g. more SR-MPLS segments. Or a service label. Or both...
So far I was considering two possibilities:
a) Only one label is dumped. In case of SR-MPLS this means that one
sgement can be skipped. In case of a
Hi Gyan,
we had this kind of issue since the rise of LDP and the invention of the
BGP free core. In a larger network, every now and then.
Some years later the notions of setting up targeted LDP sessions solved
some part of the issue.
Some more years later, IGP-LDP synchronization indeed solve
Hi Jakob,
the security consideration is a good one.
However I am not asking for more than LDP used to do for decades.
An MPLS backbone needs to make sure that MPLS packets are not accepted
from untrusted neighbors.
Best regards, Martin
Am 28.08.20 um 20:31 schrieb Jakob Heitz (jheitz):
It a
Hi Martin,
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> Horneffer
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it a little:
>
> In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should a node rather drop the packet,
> or forward it?
>
> This
Hi Pablo,
> On Sep 1, 2020, at 8:37 AM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Many thanks for the time you took to do a thorough review, please see inline
> below with [PC].
>
> Cheers,
> Pablo.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Weis via Datatracker mailto:nore...
Hi Martin
Yes MPLS has definitely been a learning curve for operators as especially
with LDP-IGP sync, session protection and RLFA LDP tunnel in failure
scenarios.
In that context of the dropped question with LDP-IGP sync on unlabeled FEC
the packets would not get dropped and would take a differe
