Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

"Susan Hares" <> Fri, 09 August 2019 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BAF12002E; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KhG1h715RyAe; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCE27120019; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: "'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'" <>,, 'SPRING WG List' <>
Cc: 'idr wg' <>
References: <18897_1564666804_5D42EBB4_18897_192_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48BCF785@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 13:31:38 -0400
Message-ID: <00af01d54ed8$4d58def0$e80a9cd0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B0_01D54EB6.C64988E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHgwZscxAbJtaxBGn+t79TpeTVmGALBQo4upsYi+jA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190809-2, 08/09/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 17:31:47 -0000

Bruno and Ketan: 


It is important to get the registries and the early allocation aligned.
After Bruno returns, perhaps the chairs can chat about the options with the


Cheerily, Sue 


From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 10:37 PM
Cc: idr wg
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy


+ IDR WG since some of the affected documents are IDR WG drafts


Hi Bruno,


I agree that the draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy [1] is the right
place to normatively define the different segment types and perhaps would
have been the right document to create an IANA registry for them.


I also agree that the draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy [2] has a
discrepancy between its IANA section 8.4 for the Segment-List sub-TLV space
and section (and it's sub-sections) where the different Segment
Types have been defined. I will request the authors of this draft to fix the
text in section (and it's sub-sections) for the types 8 and above to
adjust for the codepoint 9 allocated for the weight sub-TLV.


At this point, given the implementations available and already deployed for
[2], I doubt if we can correct and map the segment types in that draft to
what has been defined in [1].


There is also the
.7>  which creates the Segment Types IANA registry (aligned with [1]). And
then I am not sure if draft-raza-spring-sr-policy-yang is able to
benefit/leverage the IANA registry from [1].


So unless we can have the IANA registry created via [1] being consistently
used in all dependent documents, I do not see much gain in setting up the
Segment Type registry under IANA at this point.





From: spring <> On Behalf Of
Sent: 01 August 2019 19:10
To: SPRING WG List <>
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy


Hi authors,


Speaking as individual contributor.


This document seems to define multiple types of segments (1 to 11).

May be this document would be the right place to define them normatively and
creates the IANA registry for them. And this seems like a work for spring.

Otherwise, there is a risk that other documents redefine them, possibly in a
non-consistent manner. (1) E.g.  the BGP draft is not using the same type
numbers/name, which may bring confusion. I would expect YANG models to also
need these types.

BTW is there any chance to align the types in the BGP document or is this
too late? (alternatively may be changing the types in the sr-policy








   Type 1: SR-MPLS Label:
   Type 2: SRv6 SID:
   Type 3: IPv4 Prefix with optional SR Algorithm:
   Type 4: IPv6 Global Prefix with optional SR Algorithm for SR-MPLS:
   Type 5: IPv4 Prefix with Local Interface ID:
   Type 6: IPv4 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair:
   Type 7: IPv6 Prefix and Interface ID for link endpoints as Local, Remote
pair for SR-MPLS:
   Type 8: IPv6 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair for
   Type 9: IPv6 Global Prefix with optional SR Algorithm for SRv6:
   Type 10: IPv6 Prefix and Interface ID for link endpoints as Local, Remote
pair for SRv6:
   Type 11: IPv6 Addresses for link endpoints as Local, Remote pair for




   1     MPLS SID sub-TLV                            This document

   2     SRv6 SID sub-TLV                            This document

   3     IPv4 Node and SID sub-TLV                   This document

   4     IPv6 Node and SID for SR-MPLS sub-TLV       This document

   5     IPv4 Node, index and SID sub-TLV            This document

   6     IPv4 Local/Remote addresses and SID sub-TLV This document

   7     IPv6 Node, index for remote and local pair  This document

         and SID for SR-MPLS sub-TLV

   8     IPv6 Local/Remote addresses and SID sub-TLV This document

   9     Weight sub-TLV                              This document

   10    IPv6 Node and SID for SRv6 sub-TLV          This document

   11    IPv6 Node, index for remote and local pair  This document

         and SID for SRv6 sub-TLV

   12    IPv6 Local/Remote addresses and SID for     This document

         SRv6 sub-TLV


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.