Veerendranath,
OSPFv3 SR extension would need a bigger changes for SRv6.
The point you are raising is valid, but I'm not sure the flag is the
right approach. We may want to detach the SRv6 advertisements from the
prefix reachability advertisements completely, because we do no want the
SRv6 segments to contribute to the routing at all.
We are working on the ISIS extension for SRv6 and once that is done I
will update the OSPFv3 draft accordingly.
thanks,
Peter
On 28/02/17 06:32 , Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem wrote:
Dear Peter,
We used segment routing support flag (bit 6 or 7 in RI capability information)
to notify the node support SR capability.
But there may be some legacy I/O boards which are not capable for SRH/MPLS
processing, can be bound to OSPF process.
OSPFv3 extended LSAs can also be used to carry normal prefix information same
as regular LSAs.
For MPLS, we have sub TLVs for SR prefix information, so that we can identify
the prefixes not used for segment routing.
But for IPv6, prefix information itself prefix SID, so mostly sub TLV
information is not used to carry additional SR information.
So in this case, I feel, we may need a flag to identify the prefixes not
supported segment routing or supporting segment routing.
Regards,
Veerendranath
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 27 February 2017 20:32
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <[email protected]>;
[email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6
Segment Routing
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
