Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

In general, I agree with what Ketan said, what’s important - it is the value that is being used in forwarding, even if multiple control plane entries exist, think about IGP migrations, or LDP to SR, where more than 1 protocol could be distributing the labels/SIDs. I’m not sure the FIB is the

Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

< also copying Spring WG for their review/inputs > Hi Thomas/All, I have reviewed the draft and would like to share a different perspective. What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix SID was signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS - what matters and is

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-09.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. Title : IGP Flexible Algorithm Authors : Peter Psenak Shraddha Hegde

Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

I agree with Kethan and Jeff. This draft is extending IPFIX defined in RFC 7011 7012 to support SR segments over IP export. Since SR-MPLS reuses the MPLS data plane, why would the existing IPFIX RFCs also not support SR-MPLS without having to dig into IGP control plane extensions as from an

Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

Hi Ketan, Thank you very much for the review and feedback. * What or how much value be there on determining whether a SR Prefix SID was signalled/programmed on a node via OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS - what matters and is more important is that it is a Prefix SID. Hardly any deployments would be

Re: [Lsr] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

Hi Thomas, I should have been more clear in my email. The proposal/suggestion is to add the following to the IPFIX MPLS Label type identifier registry: * SR Prefix SID * SR Adjacency SID * SR Binding SID * SR BGP Peering SID * ... and so on This helps identification of

Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type

Hi Jeff, Thanks a lot for the review and feedback. Please refer to my feedback to Ketan where elaborated more about why for label protocol migrations IE 46 is useful. * I'm not sure the FIB is the right place to collect this data though, since most of meta-data has already been lost

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. Title : OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6 Authors : Zhenbin Li Zhibo Hu