Authors,
Some comments on the draft.
1. The draft refers to the various use cases in the use case document in
I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing. It's useful to mention the section of the
use case draft which is applicable for each reference instead of giving generic
reference.
2. Section 7.2 LAN Adj-sid sub TLV:
Based on the description of the text it appears that the LAN AdjSID Sub TLV
can contain multiple neighbor-ID /SID pairs based on the nodes attached to a
broadcast network. The TLV diagram should depict carrying multiple such pairs.
"It is used to advertise a SID/Label for an
adjacency to a non-DR node on a broadcast or NBMA network."
Does the above statement mean only DR originates the LAN-Adj SID and
advertises label to non-DR nodes?
Shouldn't each node in broadcast link originate LAN adj-SID and
advertise label to all other nodes on the link?
3. Adj-Sid sub TLV section 7.1:
Description of V-flag mentions Prefix-SID, it should be changed to Adj-SID.
4. Section 4: Extended prefix range TLV is very similar to Extended prefix
TLV just that it has additional range associated with it.
I would think that we should have "route type" as in Extended prefix TLV
instead of just having a bit indicating "inter area"
Rgds
Shraddha
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
