[Idr] Comments on draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension-02

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 21:28 UTC

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension-02
Thread-Index: AQHQbMLQLghwfaicKEW/k6zyKoMwAg==
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 21:28:37 +0000
Message-ID: <D141DB4D.14491%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6065FB8F680C864181FB9FBA2595B8D6@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8pl0CSEdo9JKJfog8xMbBueU3zU>
Subject: [Idr] Comments on draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension-02
Precedence: list

Hi Hannes, et al, 

Using the IS-IS Segment Routing encodings directly is problem since the
IS-IS and OSPF encodings are not identical. In fact, for the LAN adjacency
SID, they cannot be identical since the protocols do not use the same
identifiers. Additionally, doing this inter-WG really defeats the one of
the main design tenets of BGP LS Distribution. Excerpt from section 3 of
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10.txt.

   It is desired to keep the dependencies on the protocol source of this
   attributes to a minimum and represent any content in an IGP neutral
   way, such that applications which do want to learn about a Link-state
   topology do not need to know about any OSPF or IS-IS protocol
   specifics.

I would request that you do the same for the Segment Routing TLVs rather
than having the normative references to the IS-IS segment routing draft. I
would not support WG adoption in its current form.

Thanks,
Acee

[Idr] Comments on draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segmen… Acee Lindem (acee)