Subject: [Lsr] Inconsistence regarding the definition of "Adj-SID Sub-TLV" between OSPF and ISIS extension for Segment Routing

From: "Aijun Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 16:51:37 +0800

Hi, All:

We found there were some inconsistence 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#se
ction-2.2.1

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extension
s-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#sec
tion-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.