[Idr] questions about draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Mon, 07 September 2020 03:13 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736323A1467; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3f1MvVKIUkMJ; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D58A3A1460; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 2692F1EBC3945E4173D9; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:13:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id BEED6E2DF30BE3FC0776; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:13:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0873CtaR067843; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:12:55 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:12:55 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 11:12:55 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5f55a537bd48a997
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202009071112556199243@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: ketant@cisco.com
Cc: idr@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 0873CtaR067843
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OYeYF5UR2jqdeFcP512EqxHvNEc>
Subject: [Idr] questions about draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 03:13:13 -0000

Hi Ketan,

I have a question for section 7.3.  SRv6 SID Structure TLV, and hope to get your answer.

It described:

SRv6 SID Structure TLV is used to advertise the length of each
 individual part of the SRv6 SID as defined in
 [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. It is an optional TLV
 for use in the BGP-LS Attribute for an SRv6 SID NLRI and as an
 optional sub-TLV of the SRv6 End, IS-IS SRv6 LAN End.X and OSPFv3
 SRv6 LAN End.X TLVs. The TLV has the following format:

My question is:

1) Becasue section 7 mentions that "This section specifies the new TLVs to be carried in the BGP Link State Attribute associated with the BGP-LS SRv6 SID NLRI.",

    so, can "structure TLV" be also associated with BGP-LS Link NLRI ?

2) As the description, does it mean that an SRv6 SID NLRI can contain SRv6 SID Information TLV for END SID or LAN End.X SID, then "structure TLV" is also associated with BGP-LS Link NLRI ?

3) Why the description skip End.X SID ?