Re: [Idr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-01.txt

"Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <> Mon, 10 April 2017 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7FD127B5A for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QT3DTgAivRuu for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7639612953D for <>; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=25142; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1491838237; x=1493047837; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ceKtNsNV0Wj03D5kTPCxyQKJ7pybFojxsxSX+1n15t4=; b=CjLUAnFMIgjfYBtV0Xat+rn3EDats5oXHyEsMFzfO5rGA2b+L52xxn5/ +IEIFSt9JG09bCSFZmog8+vbYGJcmGYxr+e65tZk41HdC+Q3FHvgxJ1Hz 5cvj816IEhvxXbsN6TRTP0IBWU6T6TWmRB/4ix7P6IbXyvtXgmscjSXaL 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,182,1488844800"; d="scan'208,217";a="229337139"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Apr 2017 15:30:36 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3AFUaEP028627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:30:36 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:30:35 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:30:35 -0500
From: "Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <>
To: Jeff Tantsura <>, Robert Raszuk <>
CC: idr wg <>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE)" <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSlC44kCQCnRFeakuCItibeIgUn6GEn0gAgAAjBoCAAF/gAIAAptWAgDks9QA=
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:30:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_de730d8327314fa6bfa375c76c8fd116XCHALN008ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:30:40 -0000

Hi Jeff/Authors,

Could we get this MSD BGP-LS draft polled for IDR WG adoption? The corresponding IGP drafts are already respective WG documents.


From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: 04 March 2017 16:21
To: Robert Raszuk <>
Cc: idr wg <>; Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE) <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-01.txt


Please take a look at 02 isis draft published yesterday, we have added type flag that defines the type of a SID and could be used with v6 dataplane.
The limitations wrt label operations are well understood across both custom and merchant  silicon and from use case prospective had to be addressed first.
V6 dataplane will be added.

Please let me know if this answers your questions and addresses concerns.


On Mar 4, 2017, at 06:24, Robert Raszuk <<>> wrote:

MSD drafts (yours invluded) talks about labels while MSD as such seems to be defined as maximum SID depth.

In SRv6 SID is *NOT* a label. So why not to define MSD properly across all SR scenarios?

Are we going to have now new zoo of drafts now defining MSD for SRv6 vs current docs just defining MSD for SR-MPLS ?


On Mar 4, 2017 9:41 AM, "Jeff Tantsura" <<>> wrote:

That's done in MSD drafts.
In the recently published isis draft we have also introduced MSD type flag that would be used to signal different types of SID's: recirculated labels, EL's, etc


On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 22:35 Robert Raszuk <<>> wrote:
Hey Gunter,

Good proposal however why do you only think about labels ?

Seriously if this is to move fwd let's add ability to signal also following elements:

* ability to punt SR-MPLS to local CPU (slow path) when not handled in hardware (per node basis)

* add signalling for number of SRv6 SRHs supported per node/per LC

* add signalling for depth per SRH and total of SIDs supported per node/per LC

* signal ability to punt to slow path or not for longer then support SRH stack or number of SIDs in each SRH structure.


On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE) <<>> wrote:
Heads-up… Happy to learn feedback and comments.

This draft is short and defines the attribute to use for BGP-LS to expose a
node RLD "Readable Label Depth" to a centralised controller (PCE/SDN).


On 03/03/2017, 14:21, "<>" <<>> wrote:

    A new version of I-D, draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-01.txt
    has been successfully submitted by Gunter Van de Velde and posted to the
    IETF repository.

    Name:               draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld
    Revision:   01
    Title:              Signalling RLD using BGP-LS
    Document date:      2017-03-03
    Group:              Individual Submission
    Pages:              5

       This document defines the attribute to use for BGP-LS to expose a
       node RLD "Readable Label Depth" to a centralised controller (PCE/

    Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
    until the htmlized version and diff are available at<>.

    The IETF Secretariat

Idr mailing list<>

Idr mailing list<>