Hi Alvaro,
I have posted an updated version of the draft that has the new
registries defined for all flags fields defined in it.
thanks,
Peter
On 09/04/2021 22:54, Alvaro Retana wrote:
Peter:
I’m ok with the text below.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On April 9, 2021 at 4:12:43 AM, Peter Psenak ([email protected]
(mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
268 In cases where a locator advertisement is received in both a Prefix
269 Reachability TLV and an SRv6 Locator TLV - (e.g. prefix, prefix-
270 length, MTID all being equal and Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV),
271 the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred when
272 installing entries in the forwarding plane. This is to prevent
273 inconsistent forwarding entries between SRv6 capable and SRv6
274 incapable routers. Such preference of Prefix Reachability
275 advertisement does not have any impact on the rest of the data
276 advertised in the SRv6 Locator TLV.
[major] "e.g. prefix, prefix-length, MTID all being equal and
Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV"
This text should not be an example because those are the fields that
should match. Please make it clear: "The locator advertisement is
both TLVs is considered the same when the following fliends match..."
(or something like that with better words).
what about:
"In case where the same prefix, with the same prefix-length, MTID and
algorithm is received in both a Prefix Reachability TLV and an SRv6
Locator TLV the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred.."
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
