Shraddha,
please see inline:
On 12/2/14 17:50 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
Authors,
Some comments on the draft.
1. The draft refers to the various use cases in the use case document
in I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing. It’s useful to mention the
section of the use case draft which is applicable for each reference
instead of giving generic reference.
sure, we can add that.
2. Section 7.2 LAN Adj-sid sub TLV:
Based on the description of the text it appears that the LAN AdjSID Sub
TLV can contain multiple neighbor-ID /SID pairs based on the nodes
attached to a broadcast network. The TLV diagram should depict carrying
multiple such pairs.
no. LAN AdjSID Sub TLV only advertises a adj-SID for a single neighbor.
If you have more non-DR neighbors, you need to advertise multiple LAN
Adj-SID Sub-TLVs.
“It is used to advertise a SID/Label for an
adjacency to a non-DR node on a broadcast or NBMA network.”
Does the above statement mean only DR originates the LAN-Adj SIDand
advertises label to non-DR nodes?
no.
Shouldn’t each node in broadcast link originate LAN adj-SID and
advertise label to all other nodes on the link?
For the adjacency to DR, Adj-SID Sub-TLV is used. For the adjacency to
non-DR LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV is used. It's done all all nodes on the LAN.
3. Adj-Sid sub TLV section 7.1:
Description of V-flag mentions Prefix-SID, it should be changed to Adj-SID.
good catch, will correct.
4. Section 4: Extended prefix range TLV is very similar to Extended
prefix TLV just that it has additional range associated with it.
yes, that is correct.
I would think that we should have "route type" as in Extended prefix TLV
instead of just having a bit indicating "inter area"
route-type would be misleading for range, as single range can include
prefixes of various types (intra, inter, external). We have discussed
this between authors and we agreed route-type is not the right way.
thanks,
Peter
Rgds
Shraddha
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
