Veerendranath,
can you please elaborate on the use case? I'm not sure I understand
exactly what you are asking for.
thanks,
Peter
On 20/02/17 10:34 , Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem wrote:
Dear Authors,
Gentle remainder,
We are planning to implement the “identification of IPv6 prefix for
segment routings (SRH) by setting the flag in option field” as
described in below mail.
Please provide your valuable opinion whether it is ok as per Extension
draft.
Regards,
Veerendranath
*From:* Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
*Sent:* 14 February 2017 13:08
*To:* '[email protected]'
<[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6
Segment Routing
Dear Authors,
While adverting prefixes for IPv6 Segment Routing (SRH support), the
IPv6 prefixes may not require to carry additional sub TLVs related to
SRH some times.
So to identify prefixes are using for IPv6 Segment Routing, it may be
helpful we add one option bit in prefix options like ‘N’ bit added for
Node identification.
Please provide your opinion for adding new bit for IPv6 segment routing
in prefix options.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | | N|DN| P| x|LA|NU|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Regards,
Veerendranath
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
