Hi Les, Thank you very much for the clarification.
Regards, Venkat. On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 9:02 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Venkat – > > > > First, you really should be looking at RFC 7794 – the use of R,N flags in > prefix-sid sub-tlv only exists for backwards compatibility with early > implementation of SR-MPLS. > > The proper place to set/read these flags is in the prefix-attributes > sub-TLV as they have meaning even when SR is not deployed. > > > > Yes – N flag can be set for a prefix that has been redistributed from > another routing protocol – but implementations need to have a way to know > that the redistributed prefix qualifies as a node prefix in the source > protocol. > > The means of determining that is outside the scope of the RFC. > > > > The state of the R flag has no impact on the state on the N flag. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Lsr <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Venkataratnam Naidu > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2022 12:45 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Lsr] Clarification needed on N-flag in “prefix-sid” sub-tlv > for redistributed routes > > > > Hello experts, > > > > Could you please help me to clarify the points below ? > > > > 1. Is it valid to set N-Flag in "prefix-sid" sub-tlv for redistributed > routes. > > 2. if not valid, then what should be the receiver behavior when it > receives a prefix with R&N set in "prefix-sid" sub-tlv > > > > Regards, > > Venkat. >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
