Hello Acee/All, There has not been any further comment/feedback on the point that Dirk brought up in the thread below: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_4HcJEsteNQxjxuot1uLdoXeH6s/
I want to point out that not just the LA-flag, but also the P-flag is required for propagation of the SRv6 Locator LSA across NSSA. Perhaps the best option available to us is to replace the "Flags" field in the SRv6 Locator TLV (refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-06#section-6.1) with the "PrefixOptions" field that is present in all the OSPFv3 prefix reachability advertisements in RFC5340/8362. This will also bring a nice consistency for OSPFv3 even though some flags are unused in the SRv6 context. Additionally, we can use the remaining bit available for AC-flag (anycast) similar to the ISIS SRv6 spec. Note that this change would not be backward compatible with the current spec since the bit positions are moving. Looking for feedback/input from the WG on this proposed change. Thanks, Ketan On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:47 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > As promised in today’s LSR WG meeting, this begins a 3 week WG Last Call, > ending on August 19th, 2022, for draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions. The > extra week is to account for PIST (Post-IETF Stress Syndrome). The > corresponding IS-IS draft is already on the RFC Queue and there are > implementations. > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/ > > > > > > Thanks, > > Acee & Chris > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
