Hi Chris,
On 05/02/2020 00:27, Chris Bowers wrote:
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."
##PP
sure.
=========
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."
##PP
here's the proposed text:
All the nodes advertising the same anycast locator MUST instantiate the
exact same set of SIDs under such anycast locator.
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.
##PP
flex-algo prefix metric is not defined in this draft, so I don't believe
we can mention it here.
thanks,
Peter
==========
Thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
