Re: [Lsr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: (with COMMENT)

I noticed in the intro that IPv4 is not mentioned just IPv6 and mpls.  Was that on purpose.

   Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
   paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
   topological sub-paths, called "segments".  These segments are
   advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
   Prefix segments represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or
   a node), as per the state of the IGP topology.  Adjacency segments
   represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the
   IGP.  A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an
   adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path.  SR’s
   control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and
   does not require any additional signaling (other than the regular
   IGP).  For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not
   require any LDP or RSVP-TE signaling.  Still, SR can interoperate in
   the presence of LSPs established with RSVP or LDP.

Gyan Mishra 
Verizon Communications 
Phone: 301 502-1347

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2019, at 7:58 AM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A few comments/questions:
> 
> 1) For both the Prefix Segment Identifier and the Adjacency Segment Identifier
> sub-TLV it is not fully clear to me what the value field is used for when the
> V-Flag is set. Can you further elaborate this in the draft or provide a
> respective pointer?
> 
> 2) The F-Flag in Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV and SID/Label Binding TLV
> is only one bit. I'm not expecting a new version of IP any time soon, however,
> maybe completely different address families could be useful as well. Not sure
> if only 1 bit is future-proof...?
> 
> 3) Would it make sense to also discuss any risk of leaking information (e.g.
> about the network topology) in the security consideration section?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr