Jie - OK - my bad.
You are correct that for IS-IS RFC 8868 introduced new variants of the ADJ-SID sub-TLVs for L2Bundle members (sub-TLVs 41 and 42). This was done for encoding efficiency. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8668.html#name-advertising-l2-bundle-membe It may be reasonable (and consistent) to consider doing the same for SRv6 END.X SIDs. OSPF did not need the encoding optimizations and so nothing needs to be done. Guess we can straighten this out during the LSR session. Apologies. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 3:18 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; draft-dong-lsr-l2bundle- > [email protected]; lsr <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Review of draft-dong-lsr-l2bundle-srv6-03 > > 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. > > 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 > > > > Regarding https://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 to [email protected]
