[Idr] Comments on draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension-02

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE1F1A1BBD for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 OOMfsH2MUBSY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1AC31A19F4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1314; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427923718; x=1429133318; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Dwei8TNrNcm49EOT/bzupwjvSXQzhFf831zRKStvBJA=; b=mKFnw0cljC/MLzPnnzSWYQQ+tfToBw33mUGJWQiVafV+mEbNS6rA5fIO jX2JdKpTgUsRf8ClSV6O+VhEdCOzXuo3UBuAxxLzvP5Xjt1EIg5dqa1+X bgiO8eL8dOXOqVYNRXjlB4L9AWd/s+jryJ9KPDQPJMYMzatBHiLIoJM1Z k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A2BQBfYhxV/4wNJK1cgwaBM4MQyF6BI0wBAQEBAQF9hBsjEVcBIgImAgQwFRIEiEKmHI9MmQcBAQEHAgEfgSGRcIFFBZBjiXaUQCKCAhyBUIIzfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,506,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="137480424"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2015 21:28:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t31LSbbT025835 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:28:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.236]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:28:37 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension-02
Thread-Index: AQHQbMLQLghwfaicKEW/k6zyKoMwAg==
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:28:37 +0000
Message-ID: <D141DB4D.14491%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6065FB8F680C864181FB9FBA2595B8D6@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8pl0CSEdo9JKJfog8xMbBueU3zU>
Subject: [Idr] Comments on draft-gredler-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extension-02
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 01 Apr 2015 21:28:43 -0000

Hi Hannes, et al, 

Using the IS-IS Segment Routing encodings directly is problem since the
IS-IS and OSPF encodings are not identical. In fact, for the LAN adjacency
SID, they cannot be identical since the protocols do not use the same
identifiers. Additionally, doing this inter-WG really defeats the one of
the main design tenets of BGP LS Distribution. Excerpt from section 3 of
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10.txt.

   It is desired to keep the dependencies on the protocol source of this
   attributes to a minimum and represent any content in an IGP neutral
   way, such that applications which do want to learn about a Link-state
   topology do not need to know about any OSPF or IS-IS protocol
   specifics.

I would request that you do the same for the Segment Routing TLVs rather
than having the normative references to the IS-IS segment routing draft. I
would not support WG adoption in its current form.

Thanks,
Acee