Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding SR-ERO Validation Error

[Mrinmoy Das]

Thanks Dhruv for the clarification.

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 5:17 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:

> Hi Mrinmoy,
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:52 PM Mrinmoy Das 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Team,
>>
>> I found below SR-ERO validation in RFC 8664, 5.2.1
>> . SR-ERO
>> Validation
>>
>>The SR-ERO subobjects can be classified according to whether they
>>contain a SID representing an MPLS label value or an index value, or
>>no SID.  If a PCC detects that the SR-ERO subobjects are a mixture of
>>more than one of these types, then it MUST send a PCErr message with
>>Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value =
>>20 ("Inconsistent SIDs in SR-ERO/SR-RRO subobjects").
>>
>>
>> As per my understanding of the above text, there could be three types of
>> SIDs:
>>
>> 1. *SID index: *S-bit = 0, M = 0,C = 0
>> 2. *SID as MPLS label:* S-bit = 0, M = 1, C = 0/1
>> 3. *Null:* S-bit = 1
>>
>> Now, if a LSP contains 3 SR-ERO subobjects then all those three should
>> have the same SID type, e.g. all may be type 1, or type 2 or type 3 and
>> there shouldn't be any combination of these 3 types.
>>
>> Is this understanding correct? Please let me know.
>>
>>
> Yes! Your understanding is correct.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Mrinmoy
>> ___
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding SR-ERO Validation Error

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi Mrinmoy,

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:52 PM Mrinmoy Das  wrote:

> Hello Team,
>
> I found below SR-ERO validation in RFC 8664, 5.2.1
> . SR-ERO
> Validation
>
>The SR-ERO subobjects can be classified according to whether they
>contain a SID representing an MPLS label value or an index value, or
>no SID.  If a PCC detects that the SR-ERO subobjects are a mixture of
>more than one of these types, then it MUST send a PCErr message with
>Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value =
>20 ("Inconsistent SIDs in SR-ERO/SR-RRO subobjects").
>
>
> As per my understanding of the above text, there could be three types of
> SIDs:
>
> 1. *SID index: *S-bit = 0, M = 0,C = 0
> 2. *SID as MPLS label:* S-bit = 0, M = 1, C = 0/1
> 3. *Null:* S-bit = 1
>
> Now, if a LSP contains 3 SR-ERO subobjects then all those three should
> have the same SID type, e.g. all may be type 1, or type 2 or type 3 and
> there shouldn't be any combination of these 3 types.
>
> Is this understanding correct? Please let me know.
>
>
Yes! Your understanding is correct.

Thanks!
Dhruv



> Thanks,
> Mrinmoy
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Pce] Clarification regarding SR-ERO Validation Error

[Mrinmoy Das]

Hello Team,

I found below SR-ERO validation in RFC 8664, 5.2.1
. SR-ERO
Validation

   The SR-ERO subobjects can be classified according to whether they
   contain a SID representing an MPLS label value or an index value, or
   no SID.  If a PCC detects that the SR-ERO subobjects are a mixture of
   more than one of these types, then it MUST send a PCErr message with
   Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value =
   20 ("Inconsistent SIDs in SR-ERO/SR-RRO subobjects").


As per my understanding of the above text, there could be three types of
SIDs:

1. *SID index: *S-bit = 0, M = 0,C = 0
2. *SID as MPLS label:* S-bit = 0, M = 1, C = 0/1
3. *Null:* S-bit = 1

Now, if a LSP contains 3 SR-ERO subobjects then all those three should have
the same SID type, e.g. all may be type 1, or type 2 or type 3 and there
shouldn't be any combination of these 3 types.

Is this understanding correct? Please let me know.

Thanks,
Mrinmoy
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce