+1 Regards, Jeff
> On May 10, 2019, at 05:22, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > Hi Oliver, > > Technically Adj-SID refers to an IGP adjacency between two nodes as per > RFC8402 semantics. I don't think a passive (stub) link falls under that > category. It would be better to define a passive link separately (somewhat on > lines of what was done for inter-AS TE) so that it does not get mixed up with > the classical IGP links. I would think a new draft would be apt for such an > extension. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: 10 May 2019 17:39 > To: Christian Franke <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; SPRING <[email protected]>; LSR <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Adjacency SID and Passive Interface > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
