draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments
Type: Proposed Standard
status: WG Draft (last publication 11/22/2022), expired, needs revision
current version: -02
implementations: TBD
SR draft: TBD
Email Link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BdAT2NbDpc9QLK-7QJEhou8fh-E/
Status: Needs revision
status: WG Draft (last publication 11/22/2022), expired
version: Needs update
early allocation: Needcd for BGP-LS TLV type
a) Service Chaining (SC) TLV
b) Opaque Metadata (OM) TLV
[RFC7752] should be replaced with [RFC9552]
[draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] should be updated to [RFC9514]
[draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] should be updated to the appropriate drafts.
Is this IANA or the operator? Please make it clear how this value is
derived or pulled from an IANA source.
Please indicate
Error handling needs to be specified for the opaque data.
What consistutes a length error?
Can theire be propriertary malformed fields or not?
reference appropriate current IDR drafts.
Please deal with the issues in malformed opaque data.
Service segments are critical pieces of infrastructure.
Consider a write-up that indicates these critical
pieces of infrastructure need to be protected.
For examples, see [draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]
for BGP-LS examples see [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]
old text:/
However, if SR-C is configured to compute a constrained path from 1
and 6, including a DPI service (i.e., S2) it is not yet possible due
to the lack of service distribution. SR-C does not know where a DPI
service is nor the SID for it. /
New text:/
However, if SR-C is configured to compute a constrained path from 1
and 6, including a DPI service (i.e., S2) it is not yet possible due
to the lack of information about service distribution. SR-C does
not know where a DPI service is nor the SID for it. It does not
know that S2 is a service it needs.