Re: [bess] draft-rosen-bess-pta-flags

"Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 02:42 UTC

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] draft-rosen-bess-pta-flags
Thread-Index: AQHQRjk65ePYjTCYKEefIIEO1Qw+J5zrt9mA
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:42:49 +0000
Message-ID: <D101482F.65143%jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <54DBBB1E.5010401@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <54DBBB1E.5010401@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F8CA2CAF94685A41A8CEA21092D6706C@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/gmbUnHc_P2_zFwXxFMcRszpr5ok>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-rosen-bess-pta-flags
Precedence: list

Eric,

Thanks for this. It is very much needed.

About this:

"It might also be worth thinking about whether the interpretation of the
flags octet should be dependent on the type of route to which the PMSI
Tunnel attribute is attached.  However, that complication is not
currently suggested in the draft."

As you say, given the small number of possible allocations I think we
should make the allocation specific to the type of route and Tunnel Type.
This is what we added in draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-optimized-ir:

"The definition of the "Flags" octect is specific to PTAs with Tunnel
Types IR (0x06) and AR (TBD). The use of the described flags for
other Tunnel Types is out of the scope of this document."

Thanks.
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:27 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Cc: "erosen@juniper.net" <erosen@juniper.net>
Subject: [bess] draft-rosen-bess-pta-flags

>The PMSI Tunnel attribute defined in RFC6514 contains a "flags" octet.
>RFC 6514 only defines a single one-bit flag, "Leaf Information
>Required".  However, the next revision of
>draft-dolganow-l3vpn-mvpn-expl-track is probably going to specify the
>use of a second bit from the flags octet.  And
>draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-optimized-ir specifies the use of 4 bits from
>the flags octet.  Since this particular octet only contains eight bits,
>it is probably a good idea to have an IANA registry for it, to minimize
>the chance that two different drafts will try to allocate the same bit
>for different purposes.
>
>Thus the trivial draft draft-rosen-bess-pta-flags, which, if progressed
>to RFC, would establish this registry.
>
>Given the small number of possible allocations, the proposed
>registration procedure is "Standards Action", which automatically
>includes the possibility of "early allocation".
>
>It might also be worth thinking about whether the interpretation of the
>flags octet should be dependent on the type of route to which the PMSI
>Tunnel attribute is attached.  However, that complication is not
>currently suggested in the draft.
>
>Comments?
>
>_______________________________________________
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] draft-rosen-bess-pta-flags Eric C Rosen
Re: [bess] draft-rosen-bess-pta-flags Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)
Re: [bess] draft-rosen-bess-pta-flags Jeff Tantsura