I support WG adoption. However before adoption I agree with what has already been mentioned on ML the use case to advertise the AC flag and not just for parity with SRv6 IGP extension that already covers Anycast via AC flag in ISIS extension RFC 9352 and OSPFv3 extension RFC 9513. Since this flag is generic to apply to IP and not just SR I agree we should not mention any SR semantics. However since the use case being discussed is in SR context for SDN controller we are defining a prefix sid on multiple routers this making it IP Anycast. That being the case then I think SR-MPLS and prefix sid should definitely be mentioned in the draft.
In the context of this draft since it’s primary use case is for SR-MPLS IP Anycast usage “anycasting” a prefix sid on multiple ASBRs for node protection I am thinking maybe instead of writing this draft why not update SR-MPLS IGP extension- RFC 8665, RFC 8666, RFC 8667. Also this would make things more holistic from LSR POV and provide direct parity between the SR-MPLS and SRv6 IGP extension specifications. As Tony mentioned the concept of Anycast is IP Anycast proximity routing with multiple node’s advertising the same IP. Not an Anycast address or Anycast SID. This should be made clear. Kind Regards <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347* On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 2:43 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > This starts the Working Group adoption call for > draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag. This is a simple OSPFv2 maintenance draft > adding an Anycast flag for IPv4 prefixes to align with IS-IS and OSPFv3. > > Please send your support or objection to this list before April 6th, 2024. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
