In talking with folks, and looking at the draft, I realized that there
were two different interpretations of the Endpoint Behavior Registry.
I can not tell which is intended.
I had assumed, possibly incorrectly, that the list of code points was a
list of code points to use in routing and control protocols (so all the
control mechanisms sould have inter-changeable semantics for SRv6 SIDs.
I thus assumed that one would see in routing an advertisement that in
some form said "SID prefix X is serviced by node Y and provides
functionality of Endpoint Behavior Z, with the remaining bits as defined
in the registry."
Other folks have read this text as defining the bits that must appear in
the explicit SID in the SID list, between the loactor portion and the
arguments. This would provide some small savings in the routing and
control infrastructure (but not a lot since there still need to be
advertisements about what Endpoint Behaviors each node actually
supports.) This would seem to constrain implementations to use exactly
these code point. I am reminded of diffserv, where we looked at doing
that and concluded that operator needs were such that it did not make
sense to mandate the on-the-wire code point.
Can the authors please clarify which meaning they intend? Possibly by
pointing me at the wording in the document that makes it clear?
Thank you,
Joel
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
