We found there were some inconsistences for the definition of "Adjacency Segment Identifier" between OSPF and ISIS extension for segment routing, please see the link below for comparison. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-15#se ction-2.2.1 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extension s-10#section-7.1 Here we want to know is there any reason for this inconsistence? We think this inconsistence can easily cause error for BGP-LS implementation for segment routing extension, as that defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04#sec tion-2.2.1, which is similar with ISIS extension for SR, but different from OSPF extension for SR. Do we need to make them consistent? It seems change the definition in OSPF extension may be less influence for the existing related drafts. Best Regards. Aijun Wang Network R&D and Operation Support Department China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr