I noticed in the intro that IPv4 is not mentioned just IPv6 and mpls. Was that on purpose.
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). Prefix segments represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or a node), as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. SR’s control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and does not require any additional signaling (other than the regular IGP). For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not require any LDP or RSVP-TE signaling. Still, SR can interoperate in the presence of LSPs established with RSVP or LDP. Gyan Mishra Verizon Communications Phone: 301 502-1347 Sent from my iPhone > On May 14, 2019, at 7:58 AM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A few comments/questions: > > 1) For both the Prefix Segment Identifier and the Adjacency Segment Identifier > sub-TLV it is not fully clear to me what the value field is used for when the > V-Flag is set. Can you further elaborate this in the draft or provide a > respective pointer? > > 2) The F-Flag in Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV and SID/Label Binding > TLV > is only one bit. I'm not expecting a new version of IP any time soon, however, > maybe completely different address families could be useful as well. Not sure > if only 1 bit is future-proof...? > > 3) Would it make sense to also discuss any risk of leaking information (e.g. > about the network topology) in the security consideration section? > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
