[bess] Re: WG status for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tulasi,

The document is in the WGLC queue. We (authors) will refresh it shortly.

RFC8986 does not mandate a fixed size for ARG nor call for making it
configurable. The text that you highlight is simply bringing to notice such
a possibility and how to handle it.

Perhaps I am missing your question/concern with the text and if so, please
clarify.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 4:59 PM TULASI RAM REDDY <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I see the draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-01 is in expired state, do we have
> any plans to revive with the new version.
> I don't see much traction in the WG for adoption. Do we have AL
> configuration options provided by any vendor for uSID or Full SID.
> Curious to know, if any vendor has implemented below mismatch AL case as
> highlighted in red  in Sec3.3:  Processing at Ingress PE
>
>    2.  When a non-zero AL is signaled via Route Type 3, then the
>        matching Route Type 1 for the Ethernet Segment is found and
>        checked for the presence of an SRv6 SID advertisement with the
>        End.DT2M behavior.
>
>        b.  If the AL values in Route Type 1 and 3 are both non-zero and
>            not equal, then there is no usable ARG value.  It also
>            indicates an inconsistency in signaling from the egress PE.
>            To avoid looping, the BUM traffic MUST NOT be forwarded for
>            such routes from the specific Ethernet Segment and
>            implementations SHOULD log an error message.
>
>
> Thanks,
> TULASI RAMI REDDY N
>