IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Are there any restriction on how to use the Color Sub-TLV specified by RFC5512 Tunnel Advertisement?

stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net> Thu, 28 June 2018 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <stefano@previdi.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A709A12F1AC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=previdi-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iQn7KnrrCE0a for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD76130E80 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c5-v6so4281105wrs.10 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=previdi-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KYR+zFrKB8uACsngBF6qU37VtMoNuaBgfL58XA4gPh4=; b=FISqzvXK8PeAWF5eRXixINN2CBmBCXPRziJGy6cv3pr2AZlPn3pN5vNeje6rO6+f01 B9ou/N+Lalqr9dOUZPsUb5FzDUKrLmsOltG9J7APQXgKYHDZAHtoZDeJtXaNU27Ro7bY KXF/ypd5z2a0TGRnNriENYUwnAjl7H18PEJfMrKjqn19ot48ZZq/rtZ7WtdqVJPaiboD l13LCb1QaVwxs7zXSOGDzqrVbOEVR0r4/Akby5KnQ5fwYyUiz6nEombrZuAJ7XW5XHVr KnGM55xWYAdJC0FQlJd063hi1G23GJTbd/fhEciKt5BHPJEzDIJsn8C1zt39CXouI8wJ 3pWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KYR+zFrKB8uACsngBF6qU37VtMoNuaBgfL58XA4gPh4=; b=n82sjNKADx8YjZsVDpPMLIaymbYFri5oIZBZzPs9BgOJSFR5Y8umQQbEVbK6zMHsic a8DxX3QEdXNkK0E8kQkIkicds+3r3lj9s63gR1n6W3SlYCPx2pZ9IeFXYVqIvT+ZvHGV gmf2+Wdexkv+NrCLy5vzcJEe/CIu1zJ0mfWnT1c1b/XpLBr2B7ZW1xu65wYLchYnSM4X c4addO/TOvr5S3CitJ8TUYfALQS+9iWNHMhc/1UMK3oM1c7K28ro9Uzwv3z8xGt2bzWu kyP0Qho63TRZJDdGlhQOQYddWKtgBFOzqvz4VqZ4B4JlTalLlb8EKLKFJBeibzFrcAyD 9EJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3ghgmtEex18iTel1IetkuH+cp/g0AuyfOOFgxnO0LlLh69ESNG j/yP443woAmkYb//gziGVjBjqA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeREO8KxBvizgA/5D06FQz80Bai8CusDUVIX3SqjJpDJb4wy7wcx3HaXp0vuOB2g/MqgWBPag==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:cd81:: with SMTP id q1-v6mr7281398wrj.275.1530169028146; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (net-2-38-102-25.cust.vodafonedsl.it. [2.38.102.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a17-v6sm4538286wrr.81.2018.06.27.23.57.06 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Jun 2018 23:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B073B5F@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 08:57:13 +0200
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "pmohapat@cisco.com" <pmohapat@cisco.com>, "erosen@cisco.com" <erosen@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A44E0FD0-125D-40C0-9DC9-D65D2F7437F8@previdi.net>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F66B073B5F@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1idi8Cy5fc08_NQkXe58LEKbEnU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Are there any restriction on how to use the Color Sub-TLV specified by RFC5512 Tunnel Advertisement?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 06:57:13 -0000

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> RFC5512 says:
>  
> <image003.png>
>  
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-03 uses the Color Extended Community (as defined in [RFC5512]) to steer traffic into an SR Policy.
>  
> If we want to use “Color Sub-TLV” for more detailed information of end point, such as location, is it Okay?


the semantic of the color value is determined by the operator not by the specification, so you can easily define a coloring scheme including location and many other criteria.

thanks.
s.


>  
> Thank you very much
>  
> Linda Dunbar
>  
> From: Linda Dunbar 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 1:16 PM
> To: 'idr@ietf.org' <idr@ietf.org>; 'pmohapat@cisco.com' <pmohapat@cisco.com>; 'erosen@cisco.com' <erosen@cisco.com>
> Subject: Can RFC5512 specified Tunnel Advertisement be used for an endpoint to announce supporting multiple tunnel types?
>  
> BGP experts:
>  
> If an end point support multiple tunnel encapsulations (GRE, VxLAN, etc), does RFC5512 specified Tunnel Advertisements allow the endpoint to announce all those tunnel types? How?
>  
> Thank you. 
>  
> Linda Dunbar
>  
> From: Linda Dunbar 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 1:03 PM
> To: 'Linda Dunbar' <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>; idr@ietf.org; pmohapat@cisco.com; erosen@cisco.com
> Subject: RE: [Idr] Questions to RFC5512: Encapsulation sub-TLV and Opaque extended community to indicate the Encapsulation protocol?
>  
>  
> BGP experts: 
>  
> The RFC5512 has “distinguished SAFI value” and “the Encapsulation SAFI”. Do those two terms have the same meaning?
> The Section 3 of RFC5512 has SAFI value of 7 to represent Encapsulation SAFI.
> Does it mean that the “distinguished SAFI value” is just “7” for speaker to advertise its supported Tunnel information?
>  
>  
> The Section 4 goes on defining the Tunnel Encapsulation Type (such as L2TPv3 with Type =1; etc), and a list of sub-TLVs, one of the SubTLV is Protocol Type (section 4.2) which can be used to represent the Encapsulation Protocol (i.e. protocol type of data frames carried by the tunnel)
>  
> Why need the Opaque extended community to indicate the Encapsulation protocol?
>  
> <image004.png>
>  
> <image005.png>
>  
>  
> Thank you very much. 
>  
> Linda Dunbar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email