[171556] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?iso-8859-2?Q?Vitkovsk=FD_Adam?=)
Tue May 6 06:50:49 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Vitkovsk=FD_Adam?= <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk>
To: "mark.tinka@seacom.mu" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)"
<rajiva@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 10:50:39 +0000
In-Reply-To: <201405061134.12525.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu]
>=20
> On Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:27:09 AM Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> wrote:
>=20
> > Segment routing (SR) could/would certainly work with single-stack v6
> > and enable MPLS forwarding.
>=20
> Certainly, but based on the Paris meeting, it was not high up on the agen=
da.
>=20
> So we will, likely, have to rely on other solutions and wait for SR to ca=
tch up
> later.
>=20
> At the moment, it seems SR is being pushed hard for PCEP as well as SDN.
>=20
> Mark.=20
I think the most revolutionary SR use case is the:=20
3.2. Protecting a node segment upon the failure of its advertising node.=20
Of the now expired: draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02.=20
It's the first, complete and elegant FRR solution for the hierarchical MPLS=
implementations.=20
adam
