RTG-DIR Issue-15: Section 2.4.3 - SRv6 Binding SID + Binding SID - Why 2?

[suehares]

RTG-DIR Issue-15: Section 2.4.3 - SRv6 Binding SID + Binding SID - Why 2?

Text:/

2.4.3. SRv6 Binding SID Sub-TLV

The SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLV is optional. More than one SRv6 Binding SID sub-TLVs MAY be signaled in the same SR Policy encoding to indicate one or more SRv6 SIDs, each with potentially different SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors to be instantiated.

Jeffrey: Why would there be more than one signaled, and why would there be different endpoint behaviors? Isn't the behavior simply "steer into the SR policy"?

Ketan: This is historical and kept for backward compatibility with older implementations. Ketan: The WG was polled in this matter. While there were no implementations from "known" vendors represented at the IETF, we cannot rule out something being out there.

Jeffrey: I mean that “deprecating them” would not address the backward compatibility issue after all if there is implementation out there already based on the old version?

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/v000LQ8UZWJg-IR2-WnJqaki394/

[suehares]

closing the issue, adding to Shepherd's report.