|
Nobody said that such mapping must be distributed in a routing protocolJ
We just said that such mapping is always required no matter we use an MPLS label as function instruction or using the latter part of an IPv6 address as function instruction. Best regards, Xiaohu 发件人: rraszuk@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:rraszuk@xxxxxxxxx]
代表 Robert Raszuk Hi, Can you point me to any SRv6 document mandating that such mapping MUST be done in a routing protocol ? Thx, R. On May 9, 2017 05:16, "Xuxiaohu" <xuxiaohu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Robert, Except the function indicated by all zeros, it does require mappings between functions,
function indications and locators. Take tenant network function as an exampleJ Best regards, Xiaohu 发件人: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
代表 Robert Raszuk Hi Stewart, > Yes, but those are required anyway to support SRv6 That is incorrect. Please watch Les's presentation during last IETF where he clearly and correctly stated that IGP extensions for SRv6 are
optional and not required (unlike in the case of SR-MPLS where such signalling of global labels is indeed necessary to build "global labels" based forwarding). As a matter of fact I knew this will generate confusion in IETF and recommended to make it very clear in the drafts.
Distribution of SID functions does not need to be carried in routing protocols. And SRv6 SID locator function is native to IPv6 routing hence no extensions needed. Sure they can be carried in IGPs or BGP but this is just an option not necessity. Best, Robert. On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And to add one observation .. Yes, but those are required anyway to support SRv6. You always have to provide the mapping between the function, the function identifier and the function location.
|