I may be missing something but the SR Binding SID TLV extension  is not clear 
to me.

1)      It does not seem compliant with RFC 8667

Draft says that the advertisement has: T-flag set, M & A flags cleared, 
SID/Label sub-TLV present, Prefix-SID sub-TLV NOT present

The following extensions to the Binding TLV are defined in order to

   support Area SID:

      A new flag is defined:

         T-flag: The SID directs traffic to an area.  (Bit 5)

         When T-flag is set:

            M and A flag MUST be clear

            Range and Prefix are ignored

      Section 2.4.4 of RFC 
8667<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8667#section-2.4.4> is altered to say:

         "The Prefix-SID sub-TLV MUST be present in the SID/Label

         Binding TLV when the M-Flag and T-flag are both clear.  The

         Prefix-SID sub-TLV MUST NOT be present when either the M-Flag

         or T-flag are set."

      Regarding the SID/Label sub-TLV Section 2.4.5 of RFC 
8667<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8667#section-2.4.5> is

      altered to say:

         "It MUST be present in the SID/Label Binding TLV when either

         the M-Flag or T-flag is set in the Flags field of the parent



By definition, legacy L2 external  node will support vanilla RFC 8667, which 
"The Prefix-SID sub-TLV MUST be present in the SID/Label Binding TLV when the 
M-Flag is clear."

So it seems that the extension violates the above MUST in RFC8667, as regarding 
the Prefix-SID sub-TLV

-          Area proxy says "MUST NOT be present" (as T-flag is set)

-          RFC 8667 says "MUST be present" (as M-flag is cleared)

In addition to the above, legacy node _will_ interpret the 'Range' and 'Prefix' 
fields. So there is probably a need to specify which values need to be 
advertised for those legacy nodes. A priori range would be one as a single SID 
is advertised. Prefix seems more problematic as you need to find an IP prefix 
to advertise. And please let's avoid SID conflict and Prefix conflict...

2)      It's not clear to me whether the segment/SID is global or local.
As per my understanding of the draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy use case, the 
area-proxy SID would be global (in the external L2): "Area SID which will 
direct traffic to any of the Inside Edge Routers."

But the SID/Label Sub-TLV used by area-proxy has no flag (L-flag) indicating 
whether the SID is global or local. One could argue that if it carries a label 
it's a local SID and if it carries and index it's a global SID. But this has 
not been specified.
It has also no "algorithm" indicating how it needs to be routed global, so at 
minimum would not work with different routing algo/flex algo.
I'm not seeing in RFC 8402 or 8667 any text saying that such SID would be 
global hence globally routed in the L2 domain. (To me, this IS-IS SID was 
local, but arguably also can't find text stating this).

At minimum, area-proxy would need to specify whether the SID is global and 
local. And if global, with which hard coded algorithm it is routed. (I would 
assume "0")



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

Lsr mailing list

Reply via email to