Jimmy,
On 18/07/2025 12:17, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Hi Les,
Thanks for your review and pointers to the related information.
For IS-IS, this document proposes new sub-TLVs to achieve compact encoding of
SRv6 SIDs of the L2 bundle member links, following the approach used in RFC
8668.
For OSPFv3, RFC 9356 only defines the mechanism and encoding for carrying
SR-MPLS SIDs, SRv6 is not covered. Although IANA has set the L2BM flag for the
SRv6 related sub-TLVs, there is no explicit documentation of their usage for L2
bundle.
[RFC9513 <https://www.iana.org/go/rfc9513>] is very clear allowing
these for L2 links. What are you adding in this draft to it?
thanks,
Peter
Hope this could be discussed and clarified during the LSR session.
-Jie
-----Original Message-----
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 4:56 AM
To:[email protected]; lsr<[email protected]>
Subject: Review of draft-dong-lsr-l2bundle-srv6-03
Regardinghttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-lsr-l2bundle-srv6/ - this
draft has been around for a few years - but I wasn't aware of it - and don't
recall it ever being presented - though I may have overlooked it.
But as I saw it on the agenda for IETF 123 I took a look at it.
The functionality it defines has already been defined.
For IS-IS see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352.html#name-advertising-srv6-adjacency-
Note that the sub-TLV is allowed in TLV 25:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352.html#name-srv6-endx-sid-and-srv6-lan-
For OSPF the equivalent functionality is defined in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9356
Therefore there is no need for draft-dong-lsr-l2bundle-srv6.
I would suggest that it be dropped from the agenda.
Apologies to the draft authors for not spotting this sooner.
Les
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
