Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case
"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com> Sat, 19 May 2018 02:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ketant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A2E126CD8; Fri, 18 May 2018 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pSJ9e4noRXXb; Fri, 18 May 2018 19:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC50E1241F3; Fri, 18 May 2018 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=101144; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1526698726; x=1527908326; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=9u3MiqiQ4T/jWSEc6YcRXd9OxOFWoX/fzzbCPsuTQdg=; b=WR4waKvdW/CaRB9kllrNhSxYODO0D7Yo45ZHH4DXXiZ9eOB9igjKpf/+ hkZ2+tshJtvpmWUzPfJnTemIvm2rXERe8jvWeR5VaJJqdRJ76JXMB8iDt MTnAFzvowEOQ0GncF24cmbj6BFDChePA4AYABdKHz/k4ZuiQyl5DDxjy/ U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AQAQBokv9a/5tdJa1TChkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGCTUcEK2F9KAqDaogEjHmBeXUahwOMMxSBZAslhEcCGoF3ITQYAQIBAQEBAQECbBwMhSgBAQEEGgkKTBACAQgOAwECAQEBIQEGAwICAh8RFAMGCAIEAQ0FCBeDBoEbTAMVD6lWghyHEQ2BK4IKBYg1gVQ/gQ+CVzWCT0IBAQIBgTITOBaCSoJUAogniGMKhwwsCQKFaIVugneBP4Ntg06CeoERhGaCaIIRSoYnAhETAYEkARw4gVJwFTuCQwmCFwUSEWkBCIdWhT5vAQGPDoEYAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,417,1520899200"; d="scan'208,217";a="116758506"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 May 2018 02:58:45 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (xch-rcd-014.cisco.com [173.37.102.24]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w4J2wjHQ015444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 19 May 2018 02:58:45 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) by XCH-RCD-014.cisco.com (173.37.102.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 18 May 2018 21:58:44 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com ([173.36.7.18]) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com ([173.36.7.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 18 May 2018 21:58:44 -0500
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org" <draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case
Thread-Index: AQHT5wgm8WEN5bU3jk2TL4nKpCin9qQmlw+AgAAZ59CAD51ngIAAGo6g
Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 02:58:44 +0000
Message-ID: <a19590c6f4044e8e872d202fe19bc520@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com>
References: <021a01d3e6e6$d959e490$8c0dadb0$@ndzh.com> <28131E31-298A-4D54-B5FB-857FC4A0E17F@cisco.com> <02bc01d3e704$11f68390$35e38ab0$@ndzh.com> <0FA865FD-2D8F-4A53-87F0-C9CCBA5722C1@cisco.com> <02f101d3e707$604e2e00$20ea8a00$@ndzh.com> <F9802B05-34B5-4126-8FC2-39A2F11E880A@cisco.com> <031601d3e708$a7ba85d0$f72f9170$@ndzh.com> <c46d6ab131bf42369c987bd876beb999@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com> <006501d3eee4$4e6dcfd0$eb496f70$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <006501d3eee4$4e6dcfd0$eb496f70$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.65.32.181]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a19590c6f4044e8e872d202fe19bc520XCHALN008ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/On3hV0n7HiyyF-gGhj9NlV-Thpw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 19 May 2018 02:58:52 -0000
Hi Sue, Please check inline for clarifications. From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Sent: 19 May 2018 01:41 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; idr@ietf.org Cc: draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Ketan: Thank you for the description of the use cases. In the draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-03#section-8. 8.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-04#section-8.2>. BGP-LS BGP-LS is expected to be the key service discovery protocol. Every node is expected to advertise via BGP-LS its SRv6 capabilities (e.g. how many SIDs in can insert as part of an T.Insert behavior) and any locally instantiated SID[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext][I-D .ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution]. My understanding is that you are implying that the BGP extension for SRv6 do not use a BGP attribute. [KT] There are BGP-LS extensions and then BGP extensions (e.g. for VPNs). The latter is covered in draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn and does go into BGP attribute. In section 2, you state: “The BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines the BGP Node and Link attributes.” I believe what you mean is: New/ The BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines the BGP Node and Link attributes for the Link-State NLRI./ [KT] The BGP-LS NLRIs are existing and defined in RFC7752, we add new BGP-LS Attributes for them in draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext Is this correct? If so, it might be good to make that small clarification to your draft. [KT] Sec 2 of draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext does say this. I also believe that you are encoding the SRv6 SIDs that are associated with the node in the BGP-LS [RFC7752] Link-State NLRI in the NLRI type node as a TLV within this NLRI type. [KT] Ack The SRv6 draft (draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03) does not anticipate using a BGP attribute to associate the an SID with a set of prefixes being announced by a node. Instead, this draft suggest that the SID assignment will be assigned to a node TLV being sent by a BGP Speaker. [KT] Ack My understanding is that the node this SID TLV is associated does not have to be a bgp speaker. Is this correct? [KT] Yes. A BGP speaker could distribute this information on behalf of all the IGP nodes in its area (including its own). Alternately, when there is no IGP running (e.g. BGP-only DC) then the BGP speaker is advertising only its own SRv6 SIDs. Thanks, Ketan Thank you for helping me understand your document. Susan Hares From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:07 PM To: Susan Hares; Acee Lindem (acee); idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org> Cc: draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Hi Sue, I would like to clarify on SRv6 and BGP extensions for it. Draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid associates the Prefix SID attribute to MP BGP Labelled IPv4/IPv6 Unicast AFI/SAFI and is hence applicable to SR/MPLS forwarding plane. SRv6 architecture is described in draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming and it provides an overview of the control plane implications for various protocols in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-03#section-8. The draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn covers the VPN signalling aspects as described in sec 8.3. The sec 8.1 (though marked as IGP) explains the prefix reachability considerations for routing. The routing protocols signal reachability for the locator prefixes. The advertisement of all SRv6 SIDs of a node is done via BGP-LS and is covered in draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext (as explained in Sec 8.2 of SRv6 net. prg. draft). The SRv6 END SID is functionality equivalent to the SR/MPLS Prefix SID – i.e. instruction to go to the node advertising the prefix via the best routing path. The SRv6 END SID advertisement via BGP-LS for a BGP node is covered in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03#section-2.1.2 Thanks, Ketan From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: 09 May 2018 01:41 To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org> Cc: draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Acee: This is important fact to know. You had mentioned in person, but this point not evident in the set of drafts I had. I’ll switch that set of questions over to a different thread. Sue From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 4:07 PM To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org> Cc: draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Hi Sue, From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 4:01 PM To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>> Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>>, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>>, "draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org>" <draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Acee: draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03.txt covers the NLRI and not the BGP attribute (defined in draft-ietf-bgp-prefix-sid). Right – for the initial use cases, the BGP-LS AF will be used to advertise the SRv6 SID corresponding to a unicast prefix. Did you mean section 2 of draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn-03? 2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn-03#section-2>. SRv6-VPN SID TLV The SRv6-VPN SID TLV is defined as another TLV for BGP-Prefix-SID Attribute [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn-03#ref-I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid>]. This is another use case for SRv6 and VPN prefixes. You won’t find the exact use case that was previously in the BGP Prefix-SID draft. As discussed, it didn’t satisfy any use cases and wasn’t ever implemented. Thanks, Acee Sue From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 3:52 PM To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org> Cc: 'Alvaro Retana'; 'John Scudder'; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>; draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Hi Sue, From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>> Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>>, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>>, "draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org>" <draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Acee: Thank you for the quick response. Yes – I did mean the SRv6 (not IPv6). Just to make sure, I’ve been clear, the scenario is SR domain is running the SRv6 forwarding. BGP speaking forwarding BGP-LS with SRV6 information (per draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03.txt) adds BGP attribute with a valid BGP Prefix SID (which only works with a MPLS forwarding). What should happen in the attribute processing? The answer to this question could be placed in 1) draft-ietf-bgp-prefix-sid, 2) draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03.txt, or 3) draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn-03? Do I understand correctly from your that this problem should be addressed in the draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn-03? If this is your suggestion, it is a good one – but the draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn covers too much. The issues regarding the processing of the BGP attribute need to go to IDR. Yes – this is described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03#section-2.1.2 The BGP based Ethernet VPN over SRV6 needs to go to the Bess WG which has dealt with the EVPN creation. I’ve copied the authors on this message, and I’ll see if they can send just the BGP Attribute processing and material similar to draft-ietf-bgp-prefix-sid to IDR. I believe this draft is still evolving. You probably want to wait to review the next revision. This is not to say that there will not be other SRv6 BGP use cases in the future and I wouldn’t completely rule out future extension of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute. Thanks, Acee Sue From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 1:06 PM To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org> Cc: 'Alvaro Retana'; 'John Scudder'; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Hi Sue, From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:09 PM To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>> Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>>, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>> Subject: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text clarifying removal of SRv6 case Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>> Resent-To: Stefano Previdi <stefano@previdi.net<mailto:stefano@previdi.net>>, <cf@cisco.com<mailto:cf@cisco.com>>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, Arjun Sreekantiah <arjunhrs@gmail.com<mailto:arjunhrs@gmail.com>>, <hannes@rtbrick.com<mailto:hannes@rtbrick.com>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:08 PM Acee: I agree with not specifying the IPv6in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid. If it is not working, it does not belong in an IDR draft going to the IESG for publication. I’m glad you agree with removing SRv6 (as opposed to IPv6) from the document. I’ve suggested some text below in the introduction that identifies the SRv6 case and Indicates that BGP Prefix-SID attribute should not be associated with SRv6 SIDs (IPv6 addresses). However, there should also be some text in section 6. Section 6 states: / When a BGP Speaker receives a BGP Update message containing a malformed or invalid BGP Prefix-SID attribute attached to a Labeled IPv4/IPv6 unicast prefix [RFC8277<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8277>], it MUST ignore the received BGP Prefix-SID attributes and not advertise it to other BGP peers. This is equivalent to the "Attribute discard" action specified in [RFC7606<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7606>]. When discarding an attribute, a BGP speaker SHOULD log an error for further analysis. / In section 4.1, you identify invalid as “not having a “Label-Index TLV, and “conflicting as” If multiple different prefixes are received with the same label index, all of the different prefixes MUST have their BGP Prefix-SID attribute considered as "conflicting". You do not define malformed in any section. Normally, a malformed attribute is an attribute that does not abide by the defined attribute code, length, and value (that is the TLVs within the attribute]. Is this the intent? If so, you might indicate what malformed is someplace in the draft. Yes – I’ll add text to section 6. In this context, a malformed BGP Prefix-SID attribute is one that cannot be parsed due to not meeting the minimum length requirement or containing a TLV length that doesn't conform to the length constraints for the TLV or would exceed the attribute length. I do not perceive how section 6’s text handles the valid BGP Prefix SID attribute that is associated with an SRv6 SID. The attribute is not malformed, invalid, or conflicting. Perhaps you could call it “illegal usage”. My suggested text below uses that term. IMHO, the case of a valid BGP Prefix SID attribute being associated with SRv6 SID case needs to be addressed in the error handling section of the draft. Since SRv6 has been removed from the document, there is no need to describe error handling behavior (see below). Susan Hares Suggested textual changes to introduction to clearly state SRv6 is not supported. ============= Here’s my suggested Change 1: Current/ As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-19#ref-I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing>], when SR is applied to the MPLS dataplane ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-19#ref-I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls>]), the SID consists of a label. / Here’s a proposed text that you might add: New/As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-19#ref-I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing>], when SR is applied to the MPLS dataplane ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-19#ref-I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls>]), the SID consists of a label. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] also indicates that SR routing can be applied to the IPv6 dataplane [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] in a new v6 routing header with the SID encoded as an IPv6 address. The SR segment that uses this header is denoted as an SR SID. / Ok. I’d also add: The applicability and support for Segment Routing over IPv6 is beyond the scope of this document. Change 2 is then not necessary. Thanks, Acee Change 2: Further down in the paragraph I suggest changing: Old/ This document describes the BGP extension to signal the BGP Prefix- SID. Specifically, this document defines a BGP attribute known as the BGP Prefix-SID attribute and specifies the rules to originate, receive, and handle error conditions for the attribute. / to / This document describes the BGP extension to signal the BGP Prefix- SID. Specifically, this document defines a BGP attribute known as the BGP Prefix-SID attribute and specifies the rules to originate, receive, and handle error conditions for the attribute when SR is applied to the MPLS dataplane. This document does not specify how the BGP Prefix-SID attribute can associated used with an SRv6 SID. A BGP Prefix-SID attribute is considered illegal use of this attribute and the attribute will be discarded (see section 6 for for details on error handling ). /
- [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - Text… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid review - … Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)