Ketan, Lots of thanks for a prompt and unambiguous response! Regards, Sasha
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 8:52:44 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[email protected]>; Wen Lin <[email protected]>; BESS <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: A question about Section 3.3 of RFC 9819 Hi Sasha, Yes, the ARG would be unusable in that case. I believe this was covered by the base RFC9252 which in turn leverage RFC8986 - seehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9252#section-3.2.1<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9252#section-3.2.1> "As defined in [RFC8986], the sum of the Locator Block Length (LBL), Locator Node Length (LNL), F [https://image-processing-service.us-4.mimecastcybergraph.com/v2/banners?e=gW9fWeGHc9G8ALkSkGqJlep93WtD-A_N7zr6HbFYTc4zvHmKlLHBgTvbx7AvMG2Y56RUVMup4jmf1BGvoQAU63RxRAWpdyphZv4AKWk64bcHIy4V2UB7DzmGBDgOSi4ELSrUKedZi0DGa8eSe3TRIbWRD1FWT2OHoOd4kk2hC-GfpCbzQV4K4mdXmWmINmm1NQNBS2YeEebQ0spllywFRTD7b3wyK8iACZ6B5oUxB1upeP3h7E8EUKvdDU9dPUkkIhDb0SZCiavO9vKBgm0IfhxZ7oy19LV45JuDj1jBfAX4QrGz-HHjaarhG6J4NoVqCSgSTIMAj-3BqPuTL5SV3Flx07ghOymWPOkg4_NcgEXAQsnzvEpOEdvsLxbaFA0eNDT4CnmJHylFTGH0l7xj7fuueHOv2B4_yiXgx8vSjV1Qsuk01LHeyb4X95-K]<https://report.mimecastcybergraph.com?magiclink=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.services.mimecast.com%2Foauth2%2Fauthorize%3Fresponse_type%3Dcode%26client_id%3Do20nRkVXf7VUVnANkXhoOwGytEwGN0YAlyeDJn7oBTGNl2kN%26state%3DeyJhbGciOiJSU0EtT0FFUC0yNTYiLCJlbmMiOiJBMjU2R0NNIn0.oW71pYdeVuMiJBw4u9wS5N03IJ-G0zqNr3AZdGHlUnNHTN4X30qh2lstYuqnGF5SyAUpFY_GEHRK2UFc1sSIrqmF39vvjj3NTIp32rkX0eJ5vSUsxez6laxRZdhVbAMtG-Ba8vvBKS_Ex5gdIfg5s_tpsNKMdEzP90RSvZWm_9NZleO_oUYW8x3mtldWnXd5Y6qRbH1uMt8Pi2EeMo7dhG_eUDkB7BfSaholcNryomSReY-GoZCVhu_s69kO2ZJyIAiHJtSSFGkHPYPfgQV7B-SH_FClA9XjcidvXPurfWnCYWXICTOeK1yl0xwl8-xFOFTSFRYuVRIShChzvjgZaQ.FGQBVLwrLHwycBh2.iMxSZ_hB5IgIQi-FOp-O21OcmazNS0HsDmfuFQkqpAS85KjmdzFsXKPI5WmYhV6HnPMFX3Sb5axG1US2EyKlNJYoSpE8hxnlTcANmjrzSZonMa1GYHeVGqtG4xCYO9OyxaJufh_fR2LNwsTlkR48hI1NumRzbrvC4iXL6w7eMrmzSTMvaLdLfKdJIrd1IGrbdpDb7IZHzm5BSaCRd0DhftVL3AiCLdx9mde3gQXzJRJ9XrKHHRRCpI1CH4Dm70L2qPW3jc1jxxIy54XCv8rQ8jUp4r4eCOF7anEEL021qSvnmf73zz51do160ICE7d_9WgG0lyzgVwPwbqprtMxUS0m6wAUjylqjVbXvqH8az1hvLLq0Gzsh2zyPPsRH2NfZDJu7c0TtliLKb6dUtvZJV2YaRUdbaCg9xG-85SbjyV6eAdAQ0fekX-ygvD-IH7SXEVi7njdcL0aESb2xai8_Yatj-GpOVM-PU9NCv_3x0Qk-p9i94YAfxQsWEXO94EaPim4bxRVjM_uo4-Muwx0bvKHfMDb2YaIdWZzgPmA_P-8iRCgrfXh1S4H-ZJg1EY0xjjXb-eH9BAX8MXilEiK6g6drfgDgRdCwmwbXHYPalQIoF7DFFvobfJ-5e05qQXwwB_i0NWeACK7Bu_TVmrydDFaI5RplvREpidQ3PX90xOju_SD_ttQBO1RKHSC4Ilj8sDuuQEUm_7Cj2lZZl-gFYeL7JW3uqLi0B5hx9Zp8reGLs75DdmKdOR0MVOCYLnwP0NsYwKtI4dr_XIT6dts7bmFhaKR_nAEIAjWccrcKjd8_ujX_k7USy_082vtER5L1bMQm.OXL_9hj55XghbNLDEZBAPQ%26redirect_uri%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Freport.mimecastcybergraph.com%2Fcallback> CGBANNERINDICATOR Hi Sasha, Yes, the ARG would be unusable in that case. I believe this was covered by the base RFC9252 which in turn leverage RFC8986 - see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9252#section-3.2.1<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9252#section-3.2.1> "As defined in [RFC8986], the sum of the Locator Block Length (LBL), Locator Node Length (LNL), Function Length (FL), and Argument Length (AL) fields MUST be less than or equal to 128 and greater than the sum of Transposition Offset and Transposition Length." Thanks, Ketan On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 6:45 PM Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, I have a question about Section 3.3 of RFC 9819<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9819#section-3.3>. To the best of my understanding, this section defines the way in which Locator and Function of a SRv6 SID carried in the EVPN IMET route are combined with the Argument of this SID (when applicable) carried in the per-ES Ethernet A-D route if the structures of SIDs described in these routes are not identical as following: * LBL, LNL, and FL of the combined SID are taken from the SID structure carried in the IMET route * AL of the combined SID is taken from the SID structure carried in the per-ES Ethernet A-D route * All the bits in the SID after (LBL+LNL+FN+AL) MUST be set to zeroes. Unless I have missed something, this section does not say how to handle the situation when LBL+LNL+FN+AL) exceeds 128. My guess is this would be yet another case to declare the Argument as unusable. What, if anything, did I miss? Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha Disclaimer 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.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
