Joel,
On 20/05/2021 15:59, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have been watching this debate, and I am left with the impression that
the information being defined in section 9 of this draft is simply not
useful for routing. It confuses operational information with routing
information. Given taht the information has to come from somewhere
outside the router anyway,
the information comes from the router, that is where the SRv6 SID is
allocated.
Similar to a prefix that is configured on the router and is advertised
together with some additional attributes (e.g. tag). These attributes
may or may not be used for routing.
thanks,
Peter
iand that it is not going to be consumed by
the routers who receive the advertisements, why is it here?
Yours,
Joel
On 5/20/2021 7:49 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
Hi Erik,
thanks for your comment, please see inline:
On 19/05/2021 03:58, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote:
Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: Discuss
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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ section 9 ]
* I share the concerns of several of the others here about SRv6 SIDs
being
claimed to be IPv6 addresses but kinda not really being IPv6 addresses
if their internal structure is exposed outside of the given SR router.
SRv6 SIDs are indeed IPv6 addresses. RFC8986 introduced the SRv6 SID
structure. It also goes into allocation of SIDs where it describes the
carving out of the Block for SRv6 SIDs in the domain, followed by the
allocation of SRv6 Locators to the nodes in the domain. Then the node
allocates the function part when instantiating the SID - and all of this
is signaled via control plane protocols. This is all exposed and know to
the operator who determines the addressing scheme.
If "[i]t's usage is outside of the scope of this document", can
this be
removed for now, and maybe take up the issue at some point in the
future
by which time a motivating use case might have presented itself?
The use-cases have not been described in this document since they were
out of the scope of the ISIS protocol operations. Some of the use-cases
discussed have been :
- automation and verification of blocks/locators and setup of filtering
for them at SR domain boundaries
- validation of SRv6 SIDs being instantiated and advertised via IGP;
these can be learnt by apps/controllers via BGP-LS and then monitored
for conformance to the addressing rules set by the operator.
- verification and even determination of summary routes to be used for
covering the SRv6 Locators and SIDs.
There may be other use-cases that may be operator or vendor specific.
The use-cases are not within the scope of ISIS protocol extensions and
are either operational or implementation specific – hence we said it was
out of the scope of this document.
If you feel adding these to the document may help to clear your
concerns, I can certainly add them.
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
