Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor Prefix-SID and support SRv6 L2 Service TLV #2586

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

higebu
Copy link
Contributor

@higebu higebu commented Oct 14, 2022

No description provided.

@higebu higebu changed the title Refactor Prefix-SID Refactor Prefix-SID and support SRv6 L2 Service TLV Oct 14, 2022
@higebu higebu force-pushed the refactor-prefix-sid branch from 94523f3 to 26d3104 Compare October 14, 2022 06:47
- Add TLVType contant values.
- Add NewPathAttributePrefixSID().
- Add SRv6ServiceTLV to support SRv6 L2 Service TLV.
- Move reserved field handling to each type of TLV,
  because header and reserved field size are different for each type.
  For more details, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8669.html
  and https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9252.html.
@higebu higebu force-pushed the refactor-prefix-sid branch from 26d3104 to 0869c83 Compare October 14, 2022 06:49
uint32 local_block_length = 1;
uint32 local_node_length = 2;
uint32 locator_block_length = 1;
uint32 locator_node_length = 2;
uint32 function_length = 3;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

rename?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for your review. I'll add locator_* as new field and mark old fields as deprecated.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This feature is still based on RFC drafts. Breaking is fine by me.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If gobgp prefers RFC-compliant to API backward compatibility, I think we can rename these fields. Because this PR is based on RFC9252.

@fujita
Copy link
Member

fujita commented Oct 15, 2022

I'll push this pull request as is if it's ok with you.

@higebu
Copy link
Contributor Author

higebu commented Oct 16, 2022

@fujita It's ok for me. Please merge this PR. Thank you.

@fujita
Copy link
Member

fujita commented Oct 16, 2022

pushed, thanks.

@fujita fujita closed this Oct 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants