Hi Aijun. Look here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8668.html
Thx R. On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 6:24 AM Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Les: > > Where is the contents in RFC 9352 that mentions the “L2Bundle Member”? > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > On Jul 20, 2025, at 01:27, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Jie – > > > > As I said in my reply, I now correctly understand the point of your draft. > > However, given that RFC9352 has been published and clearly specifies that > SRv6 END.X sub-TLVs as defined in that document can be sent in TLV 25 for > L2 Bundle members, we now have a problem. If your draft were to progress, > the end result would be that there would be two standardized ways to send > the same information for L2Bundle members. This would then introduce > interoperability issues. Some nodes might support what is specified in RFC > 9352 but not support the new way you propose (or vice versa). > > > > Given the length of time RFC9352 has been published we cannot ignore this > possibility. > > > > If you had presented your draft much earlier (I note V0 was published in > Feb 2021 – before last call on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/19/> > which became RFC9352 – but for some reason you never presented this idea > until now) then it would have been possible to alter that draft to indicate > that the current SRv6 END.X SID sub-TLV was NOT applicable to TLV 25 and we > would not have had this ambiguity. > > > > I appreciate what your intent is, but I think the interoperability issues > may well outweigh the encoding efficiency benefits that can be achieved > with what is proposed in your draft. > > > > Good idea – but I think it is likely too late. > > > > Les > > > > *From:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 19, 2025 1:21 PM > *To:* Peter Psenak <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; lsr <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [Lsr] Re: Review of draft-dong-lsr-l2bundle-srv6-03 > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > Thanks for your pointer to RFC 9513. Although in the IANA section of RFC > 9513, the L2BM flag of the SRv6 related sub-TLVs is set to Y, the whole > document has no mentioning of the use of these sub-TLVs in L2 bundle > scenario. This document provides complementary description about the > applicability of SRv6 related sub-TLVs for L2 bundle in OSPFv3, following > the style in RFC 9356. > > > > That said, as in my previous reply to Les, the major purpose of this draft > is to introduce compact encoding of SRv6 SIDs for L2 bundle member links in > IS-IS. > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* Peter Psenak <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 19, 2025 12:32 AM > *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; lsr < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Re: Review of draft-dong-lsr-l2bundle-srv6-03 > > > > 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]> <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 4:56 AM > > To: [email protected]; lsr <[email protected]> > <[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] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
