> To Peter Psenak, > > I don't agree with your argrment that the reason that IS-IS extension draft > made that choice is because there is no choice for IS-IS.
i second that opinion - the only extensible container for IP prefixes are the extended IP reach TLVs. [Xiaohu] Yes, you should still use the Extended IP reachability TLVs to carry SR-related attributes. Howover, you can use "separate" Extended IP reachability TLVs other than those Extended IP reachability TLVs for building IP routing table to advertise label bindings. Since the former TLVs are just intended for label distribution, rather than IP reachability advertisement, the Metric field of these TLVs is set to a value larger than MAX_PATH_METRIC (i.e., 0xFE000000). In this way, the former TLVs now play the similar role of the OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs. Best regards, Xiaohu _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
