Chris – Regarding
<snip> Section 3.3 of RFC 8402 has similar text: "Within an anycast group, all routers in an SR domain MUST advertise the same prefix with the same SID value." T <end snip> The text in RFC 8402 is SR MPLS specific. As an SRv6 SID is an IPv6 address there is no possibility of such an inconsistency. I therefore think your proposed text imposes an unintended/unnecessary restriction. I will admit it would have been better to place the RFC 8402 statement into Section 3.3.1 (rather than Section 3.3). If you want to file an editorial errata in this regard I would have no objection. Les From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Chris Bowers Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 3:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Lsr] more feedback on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04 LSR, I have some more feedback on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04 that I am putting in a separate thread so as not to confuse the other thread related to N and A flags. ======= The end of Section 5 points out several issues that can result in forwarding not working correctly. The reader might think that the next section is going to discuss protocol mechanisms to avoid these issues. Since this is not the case, I think it would be helpful to add some text near the end of Section 5 like: "In order to ensure correct forwarding, network operators should take steps to make sure that this requirement is not compromised." ========= In section 6, I think it would be useful to explicitly state the following requirement for SRv6 Locator TLVs and their associated SRv6 SIDs: "When anycast SRv6 Locator TLVs for the same prefix are advertised by different nodes, the SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST all advertise identical sets of SRv6 SIDs." Section 3.3 of RFC 8402 has similar text: "Within an anycast group, all routers in an SR domain MUST advertise the same prefix with the same SID value." That text only refers to a single SID value, so it seems somewhat open to interpretation text in the context of an SRv6 locator that carries multiple SRv6 SIDs. I think it would be better to avoid any potential ambiguity by using the text proposed above in this document. ========= In section 12.1.2. "Revised sub-TLV table" it might avoid an extra interaction with IANA to add a line for the flex-algo prefix metric (currently 6) indicating "n" for TLV#27. ========== Thanks, Chris
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
