Les I agree the document makes it clear throughout that then mpls dataplane supports ipv4 and ipv6 however in the short Overview at the top I think it should say the following:
SR’s control-plane can be applied to both IPv4 and IPv6 MPLS data-planes, and does not require any additional signaling (other than the regular IGP) Wording seems misleading leaving out IPv4. Gyan Mishra Verizon Communications Phone: 301 502-1347 On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:02 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Gyan - > > The paragraph you cut and pasted is providing a short overview of Segment > Routing, which can be used on two different data planes - IPv6 and MPLS. > > The introduction goes on to say: > > "This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be > introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane." > > An MPLS dataplane supports forwarding of both IPv4 and IPv6 packets - and > the document makes that clear throughout. > > Extensions for IS-IS to support Segment Routing over an IPv6 dataplane are > described in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions/ . > > Les > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra > > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 7:09 PM > > To: Mirja Kühlewind <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; Christian Hopps > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on > draft-ietf-isis-segment- > > routing-extensions-24: (with COMMENT) > > > > > > 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 > -- Gyan S. Mishra IT Network Engineering & Technology Consultant Routing & Switching / Service Provider MPLS & IPv6 Expert www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT Mobile – 202-734-1000
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
