Hi Tulasi, The document is in the WGLC queue. We (authors) will refresh it shortly.
RFC8986 does not mandate a fixed size for ARG nor call for making it configurable. The text that you highlight is simply bringing to notice such a possibility and how to handle it. Perhaps I am missing your question/concern with the text and if so, please clarify. Thanks, Ketan On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 4:59 PM TULASI RAM REDDY <tulasiramire...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I see the draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-01 is in expired state, do we have > any plans to revive with the new version. > I don't see much traction in the WG for adoption. Do we have AL > configuration options provided by any vendor for uSID or Full SID. > Curious to know, if any vendor has implemented below mismatch AL case as > highlighted in red in Sec3.3: Processing at Ingress PE > > 2. When a non-zero AL is signaled via Route Type 3, then the > matching Route Type 1 for the Ethernet Segment is found and > checked for the presence of an SRv6 SID advertisement with the > End.DT2M behavior. > > b. If the AL values in Route Type 1 and 3 are both non-zero and > not equal, then there is no usable ARG value. It also > indicates an inconsistency in signaling from the egress PE. > To avoid looping, the BUM traffic MUST NOT be forwarded for > such routes from the specific Ethernet Segment and > implementations SHOULD log an error message. > > > Thanks, > TULASI RAMI REDDY N >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
