Hi authors, I am working on updating drafts of path segment extensions in BGP/BGP-LS:
* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution-00 * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-00 But I found the inconsistency of SR policy structure. * In https://tools.ietf.org/html//draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-01<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-01>, the SR policy's structure looks like: SR policy POL1 <headend, color, endpoint> Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator = 100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1> Preference 200 Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i> Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j> Candidate-path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator = 100:2.2.2.2, discriminator = 2> Preference 100 Weight W3, SID-List3 <SID31...SID3i> Weight W4, SID-List4 <SID41...SID4j> So the structure is : SR Policy Candidate-path p1 Weighted SID-list1 Weighted SID-list2 Candidate-path p2 Weighted SID-list3 Weighted SID-list4 But in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-04, SR policy is described by following structure, SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint> Attributes: Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23) Tunnel Type: SR Policy Binding SID Preference Priority Policy Name Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) Segment List Weight Segment Segment ... ... The structure is, SR Policy SID list1 SID list2 Where is the candidate-path? it seems like they are not aligned. Thanks, Cheng
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
