Hi, Ketan: There is one two-bytes “Reserved” field in “Adjacency Segment Identifier” TLV for OSPF extension, but this field doesn’t exist in the corresponding TLV for ISIS extension. Every other fields are same. Corresponding definition in BGP-LS is similar with OSPF(not similar with ISIS as I mentioned in previous mail). Then when the router reports/redistributes the ISIS LSDB information to BGP protocol, the router must add two bytes to the “length” field and add/stuff the “reserved” field; but for OSPF LSDB, the router need only copy the corresponding fields according. We have found the error arises from this inconsistency from the real router and think it is better to align this definition in different IGP protocol.
Update to ISIS related extensions draft may be easier. Aijun Wang China Telecom > 在 2018年4月2日，18:26，Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]> 写道： > > Hi Aijun, > > Can you clarify what you mean by “inconsistencies”? > > Also, you are referring the old version of OSPFv3 SR draft before it was > aligned with the OSPFv2 SR draft. Please check > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-11#section-6.1 > > OSPF and ISIS are different protocols and there are some differences between > them. I would not call them inconsistencies. BGP-LS spec refers to the > individual IGP drafts for interpretation of flags. So please specifically > point out what inconsistency you are referring to. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Aijun Wang > Sent: 02 April 2018 14:23 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" > between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing > > Hi, All: > > We found there were some inconsistences for the definition of “Adjacency > Segment Identifier” between OSPF and ISIS extension for segment routing, > please see the link below for comparison. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-15#section-2.2.1 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-10#section-7.1 > > Here we want to know is there any reason for this inconsistence? We think > this inconsistence can easily cause error for BGP-LS implementation for > segment routing extension, as that defined in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04#section-2.2.1, > which is similar with ISIS extension for SR, but different from OSPF > extension for SR. > > Do we need to make them consistent? It seems change the definition in OSPF > extension may be less influence for the existing related drafts. > > Best Regards. > > Aijun Wang > Network R&D and Operation Support Department > China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China. > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
