Hi,
There is some obvious similarity between the problem addressed in the
(expired)
draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths-03<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths-03>
and
draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-09>.
In the general case, the solutions seem to be quite different because the
former draft uses MPLS-specific mechanisms (context label spaces etc.) that are
not available with SRv6.
But Section 6 of the former
draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths-03#section-6>
offers a simple optimization for the special case that looks to me as matching
the needs of the latter draft.
If this is indeed so, it would be nice to specify this explicitly in one (or
even both) of the drafts.
If this is not so, I would really appreciate the explanation.
Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or
proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure,
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
