Hi Chris, Olivier,
On 5/10/19, 4:41 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Christian Franke" <[email protected]
on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
On 5/10/19 9:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> In the current state of Segment Routing drafts, do you think it is
possible to advertise
> Adjacency SID on such passive or inter-domain interfaces or do we need to
specify this behaviour
> in a new draft ?
>
> For me I don't see anything in the drafts that prohibits this kind of
advertisement, but perhaps I'm wrong.
My understanding is that the SID is specific to an adjacency and
advertised in IS-IS in either TLV 22, 222, 23, 223.
As adjacencies will not be formed on a passive interface, an adjacency
SID should not be advertised for the passive interface.
I agree with Chris. We shouldn't reuse the existing Adj-SID when there will
never be an adjacency and the current semantics require this. If we need
advertisement of SIDs for passive interfaces, it would definitely be a new
draft that clearly articulates the use case and designates a new type of SID
that has different semantics. Also note that while passive interfaces are very
useful in order to include a stub network in the topologies, they are not part
of the OSPF specifications. I haven't done an exhaustive search on IS-IS.
Thanks,
Acee
I might also be wrong here, though.
All Best,
Chris
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
