Hi Matthew,
please see inline:
On 05/10/2022 13:49, Matthew Bocci via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review result: Not Ready
Here is my RTG-DIR Early Review of draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-06.
Regards
Matthew
Summary
-------
The document is generally well written. Thank you. I have a few comments/nits
as listed below.
Major Comments:
It is not clear to me how, in the IPv6 case, you can distinguish between
flex-algo for IPv6 and SRv6. For example, you could advertise an IPv6 prefix
for both SRv6 and "native" IPv6 with different flex-algos. How do you decide
which to use?
If you are talking about the conflict between Locator and IP Algo
prefix, it is specified in section 6.2 of this draft:
"In cases where a prefix advertisement is received in both IS-IS SRv6
Locator TLV and in IS-IS IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV, the
receiver MUST ignore both of them and MUST NOT install any forwarding
entries based on these advertisements. This situation SHOULD be
logged as an error."
If you are talking about the conflict between SRv6 Locator and Legacy
Algo 0 prefix reachabiliy, it is specified at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions#section-5
Minor Comments:
Figure 4: The formatting of the figure looks like it is missing some characters
and the field after 'algorithm' is blank. My reading of this is that the Pfx
Length starts on Bit 0 of the 32-bit aligned block, but I think what you mean
is that Pfx Length comes immediately after the Algorithm field, so it is not
32-bit aligned with e.g. the Flags field. Please can you look at how this is
presented and clarify.
there is no alignment, Pfx Length follows immediately after Algorithm.
We can certainly improve.
Nits:
- The definite and indefinite articles (e.g. the, a, etc) are missing in
places. Please go through and add these as it would make the draft much more
readable. - Section 7 Title: "Calculating of IP...". This should probably be
"Calculation of IP...". - Section 8, 3rd Paragraph: "calculated using such
Flex-Algorithm" should be "calculated using this Flex-Algorithm". - Section 9,
1st paragraph. I suggest breaking/rewording the second sentence as follows:
"The original specification was for SR and SRv6. This specification adds IP as
another data-plane...". - While we are on the topic of data planes, SRv6 is
often thought of as "Segment Routing with an IPv6 Data Plane" to many people.
Maybe it would be worth talking about a 'native' IP data plane in this draft? -
Section 9: Last paragraph. "..same time and, and as such, ...". Delete the
first 'and'.
I will let the editors of the draft to comment/fix these.
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
