Hi,
I've read the draft, please find below some minor comments:
---
ยง4.3
" * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the SID/Label space advertised
by this router using the encodings defined in Section 3.1."
- Following the recent addition of the SRLB Label Space, I'd rather have the
text explicitly refers to name of that Label space. e.g.
OLD: SID/Label space
NEW: SRGB
- Which (SRGB) advertisement? I'm assuming the IGP one, but I guess someone may
imagine using the BGP "Originator SRGB TLV". Then what if the node runs
multiple IGP with different SRGB configured?
- Note that this document has no "Section 3.1". The text seems borrowed from
the IS-IS SR draft, hence may be adding the name of this draft would just solve
the point. (with a normative reference to this IS-IS draft)
---
OLD: The Link NLRI uses the new Protocol-ID value (to be assigned by IANA)
proposed NEW: The Link NLRI uses the BGP Protocol-ID (TBD1)
("new" may become unspecific 2 years from now)
---
One could probably argue that [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] should be a
normative reference.
Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:35 AM
To: i...@ietf.org
Cc: 'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'; spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)
This begins a 2 week IDR WG last call on
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe from (2/15 to 3/1/2017) There are
two implementations describe on the wiki at:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe%20
The two implementation are from Cisco IOS-XR release 6.0.2 and Cisco Nexus
Switch N9000/N3000 platforms running NX-OS 7.0(3)I1(1) or greater. The
authors will indicate on the list and in the wiki the following information :
1) Were these implementations separate implementations?
2) What were the results of the interoperability tests?
This work is linked to the draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe work
in the SPRING WG. Based on the two drafts, the WG should might consider:
1) Is there need for this work in deployments in networks/
2) Is this technically ready for publication?
3) Does it fit with the spring informational draft?
For the ease of reference the web references are below:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe/
Sue Hares
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
