Chris –
One of the early mistakes that was made when defining SR-MPLS was defining the
N-flag (and R-flag) in the Prefix-SID sub-TLV.
We quickly realized that these flags had meaning and use cases for the prefix –
not simply for the SID.
RFC 7794 was then written and these flags were
Dear Acee, Chris and LSR WG,
In the Post Multi-Chassis era, it is more and more common to consider CLOS
design for core router (aka De-segregated router). Unlike data center, it
requires to run LSR in the “fabric” and dramatically increase the numbers of
LSR speakers in the core network. So,
Peter and Les,
It seems to me that for the Node Flag in RFC7794 and the proposed Anycast Flag
in draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04, we are ultimately concerned with
how to identify IGP-Node Segments and IGP-Anycast Segments, as defined
in RFC8402,
the Segment Routing Architecture
Thanks Acee. Your proposed text looks much better.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 31 January 2020 18:02
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com; Christian Hopps
; lsr
Cc: draft-li-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions
Hey Ketan,
Looks good - but can we simplify/shorten the last sentence?
On 1/31/20, 7:22 AM, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" wrote:
Hi Acee,
We'll update the text as follows in sec 8 to clarify this. Please let know
if this works.
All End.X SIDs MUST be subsumed by
Hi Acee,
We'll update the text as follows in sec 8 to clarify this. Please let know if
this works.
All End.X SIDs MUST be subsumed by the subnet of a Locator with the
matching algorithm which is advertised by the same node in an SRv6
Locator TLV. End.X SIDs which do not meet this
