Acee,
my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label
Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for
SRMS advertisement like in ISIS.
thanks,
Peter
On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
To: OSPF WG List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also
effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)
Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,
As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO
extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are
not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As
document shepherd, my proposal is that they simply be removed since
they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that
no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also
deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV
registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or
indefinitely ;^).
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
