[Idr] 答复: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)

["Aijun Wang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Susan and Authors of this draft:

 

Sorry to reply this LC so late.  The followings are my suggestions to this
draft based on the discussion related to the mail thread
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vSeflAMCMPL25N4nBOZu8yG19HA

Is it too late to response?  Please see the reply below in line.

 

Best Regards.

 

Aijun Wang

Network R&D and Operation Support Department

China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.

 

发件人: Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2018年3月8日 0:41
收件人: 'idr wg'
主题: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7
to March 21)

 

This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04.
txt from March 7th to March 21.  During your discussion in the WG LC, please
indicate the following things: 

 

1)      Do you think BGP should carry these link state information regarding
segment routing, 

“Source Router Identifier (Source Router-ID) TLV” should be stripped off
this draft, because there are other situations(more general scenarios
besides SR) that requires the source router of the prefixes, as described in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext/
and discussed in mail thread
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-T7U1yg8DmSdDmtyfqBgtnkO4I0

2)      Are there any technical issues with this draft? 

 

Some clarifications should be added in the following sections:

a) Regarding the usage of SID/Label sub-TLV:

“2.1.2 SR-Capabilities TLV”, “2.1.4 SR Local Block TLV” requires all the
presence of “SID/Label sub-TLV”.  It is more clear to indicate  this
“SID/Label sub-TLV” represent the base of the “Range Size”. 

b) Regarding the inconsistence definition among “ISIS/OSPF/OSPFv3/BGP-LS”
:

    “2.2.1 Adjacency SID”, “2.2.2 LAN Adjacency SID TLV”,”2.3.1
Prefix-SID TLV”

Note for “Length” field:   2-bytes “Reserved” filed should be added when
copying the corresponding fields from IS-IS protocol 

                c) Regarding the definition “Range TLV”:

                    if the “Length” filed is 4, how to detect the
existence of “sub-TLV?” 

                    Is it more clear to rename the “Range TLV” as
“Mapping-Range TLV”, so as to distinguish it from the previous “Range
filed” in  “2.1.2 SR-Capabilities TLV”?

                d) Regarding  the contents for “3. Procedures”:

                   Suggest to delete this section, because:

-------Contents in section 3.1, 3.2 has been mentioned in corresponding TLV
definition(section 2.3.1), there is no more new information in this section.

-------Contents in  section 3.3 and 3.4 should be merged with section 2.3.4
to eliminate the inconsistence arose in future when update parts of them.

 

3)      Is this draft is ready for publication? 

If the above issued is solved, it is ready for publication.

 

For your quick access to this draft, click on the link below: 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext/

 

 

Susan Hares