Re: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
Peter Psenak <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.isis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <593E4E3D.7010105__26939.6289404996$1497255497$gmane$org@cisco.com> |
Hi, I would like to get some feedback on the usage of the SID/Label Binding TLV. Is there any implementation that uses SID/Label Binding TLV for advertising the SID/Label binding to a FEC as specified in section 6 of the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16 or section 2.4 of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-12? If not, do we see this as something we want to preserve in the IGP SR drafts? ISIS uses The SID/Label Binding TLV to advertise prefixes to SID/Label mappings, which is known to be supported by several implementations and that piece needs to be preserved. thanks, Peter On 09/06/17 19:04 , Peter Psenak wrote: > Acee, > > my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label > Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for > SRMS advertisement like in ISIS. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one. >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> From: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM >> To: OSPF WG List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: "[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also >> effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) >> >> Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs, >> >> As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO >> extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are >> not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As >> document shepherd, my proposal is that they simply be removed since >> they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that >> no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also >> deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV >> registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or >> indefinitely ;^). >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> > > . > _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg