[Idr] Regarding segment routing capability bit set in ‘Router Informational Capabilities TLV’ of RI LSA

Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com> Wed, 23 November 2016 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
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 ADCF21298A0; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:48:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.717
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.717 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PmoxGBTitWln; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 077161297C2; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 01:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DBF76699; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:48:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:48:44 +0000
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:18:36 +0530
From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?Windows-1252?Q?Regarding_segment_routing_capability_bit_set_in_=91Route?= =?Windows-1252?Q?r_Informational_Capabilities_TLV=92__of_RI_LSA?=
Thread-Index: AdJFbsHaaun5gJXERUC39veXLL+/Iw==
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:48:35 +0000
Message-ID: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788508367A6@blreml501-mbx>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.152.243]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788508367A6blreml501mbx_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.583565FE.0061, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 29aaee0e70b8da843fd851ab3cf22b4d
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4VrLfwEaluKHX2ZrntzBXKJ4zh0>
Cc: "'idr@ietf.org'" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] =?windows-1252?q?Regarding_segment_routing_capability_bit_s?= =?windows-1252?q?et_in_=91Router_Informational_Capabilities_TLV=92__of_RI?= =?windows-1252?q?_LSA?=
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:48:49 -0000

Dear Authors,
While advertising Segment Routing capabilities in RI LSA, as per draft there is ‘no bit’ is allocated in ‘Router Informational Capabilities TLV’  for segment routing capability.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This specification updates several existing OSPF registries.

9.1.  OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry

   o 8 (IANA Preallocated) - SR-Algorithm TLV

   o 9 (IANA Preallocated) - SID/Label Range TLV

   o 12 - SR Local Block Sub-TLV

   o 13 - SRMS Preference Sub-TLV



Whether bit set in ‘Router Informational Capabilities TLV’  is not required for segment routing capability , to notify neighbors?

Regards,
Veerendranath