Hi Aijun,

Can you clarify what you mean by "inconsistencies"?

Also, you are referring the old version of OSPFv3 SR draft before it was 
aligned with the OSPFv2 SR draft. Please check 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-11#section-6.1

OSPF and ISIS are different protocols and there are some differences between 
them. I would not call them inconsistencies. BGP-LS spec refers to the 
individual IGP drafts for interpretation of flags. So please specifically point 
out what inconsistency you are referring to.

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: 02 April 2018 14:23
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" 
between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

Hi, All:

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#section-2.2.1
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-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#section-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

Reply via email to