[+ bess WG] Hi Rajesh!
I couldn’t find where draft-agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking makes the Label-Index TLV not mandatory, but that is probably related to the inconsistent use of the TLV names in that draft. Regardless, if draft-agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking wants to change the behavior, they should clearly indicate the change, discuss it in the appropriate mailing lists (idr, at least), etc. I note that draft-agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking recently expired. I added the bess WG for awareness. Thanks! Alvaro. On April 8, 2025 at 1:50:30 AM, Rajesh M ( mrajesh=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org) wrote: *Hi All,* *As per RFC 8669 3.1. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8669#section-3.1>Label-Index TLV <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8669#name-label-index-tlv> * The Label-Index TLV MUST be present in the BGP Prefix-SID attribute attached to IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast prefixes *Label-Index TLV is not mandatory in BGP Prefix-SID attribute attached to IPv4/IPv6 Labeled Unicast prefixes, after below draft (srv6 support for BGP-LU family)* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-agrawal-bess-bgp-srv6-mpls-interworking/ Thanks Rajesh Juniper Business Use Only _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spr...@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
