Re: [spring] draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Parag,

On 27/05/2020 14:22, Parag Kaneriya wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This is regarding the query for Locator TVL ,
> 
> As per the draft there is flags  D (L2-L1 leaking) and A (anycast ) 
> defined.   Since there is space already exists for other flags , why 
> can’t  R flag is not defined in the main tlv.

the A flag has been moved to Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV.
R-flag is part of the Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV as well.

Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV can be advertised as a Sub-TLV inside the 
Locator TLV.



> 
> Defining in main tlv when it had space, have some benefit as per me.
> 
>  1. Many operator may opt to support main tlvs and may not support
>     sub-sub-tvl.

I don't understand. Either you support a particular extension or not. 
You can not be selective based on what level of nesting is being used 
for it.

thanks,
Peter


>  2. Easy implantation and inter-op can  work with main tvl
>     implementation itself.
> 
> I understand that rfc7794 can define extended prefix attribute tlv, for 
> the same and   Locator tlv can sent with sub-sub-tlv define in rfc7794.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Parag
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
>