Hi Rajesh, Thanks for your review of the draft. As you've noticed, this draft is not yet in sync with the IS-IS SRv6 specifications. Please expect an update to this draft soon - likely during this IETF week or shortly thereafter.
Thanks, Ketan From: Rajesh M <[email protected]> Sent: 24 March 2019 20:02 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]> Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]> Subject: draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-03 Hi All, Please find few comments on this draft. 1. Its better to have SRv6 Locator TLV similar to what is there in draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-05. 1. Draft says O-flag: If set, then router is capable of supporting SRH O-bit Flags, as specified in [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. This must be O-flag: If set, the router supports use of the O-bit in the Segment Routing Header(SRH) as defined in [I-D.ali-spring-srv6-oam]. 1. SRv6 SID Link Attribute Sub-TLV, SRv6 SID LAN Link Attribute Sub-TLV here SID Flags must define B-Flag: Backup flag. S-Flag. Set flag. P-Flag. Persistent flag. Thanks Rajesh
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
