Re: [Idr] draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06

Have read the draft and support the adoption. 

Thanks,

Sandy

Original

From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>;
Cc: 刘尧00165286;
Date: 2023年01月27日 22:27
Subject: [Idr] draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

This adoption begins a two week WG Adoption call for

draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp/

The authors should respond to this message with

Email that indicates whether they know of any IPR

related to this draft.

In your discussions please consider if this WG

should approve an  extension to Segment flags defined in the

draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20.txt .

The existing flags are the following

2.4.4.2.12.  Segment Flags

   The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the following

   flags in the "Flags" field defined in Section 6.8:

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   |V|A|S|B|       |

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 22: Segment Flags

The changes proposed by this draft are the addition

Of an “E” flag to those bits.

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+    |V|A|S|B|E|     |    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   E-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates that presence of < ELI, EL> label pairs which are inserted after this segment.  E-Flag is applicable to Segment Types A, C, D, E, F, G and H.  If E-Flag appears with Segment Types B, I, J and K, it MUST be ignored. 

Cheerily, Sue

Re: [Idr] draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023