Re: [Idr] [Lsr] Regd covering BGP-LS extensions for IGP ELC drafts

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 26 July 2019 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 5E2E7120277; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Mz4WynPejULA; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 20A53120273; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 19:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=31.133.150.194;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Ketan Talaulikar \(ketant\)'" <ketant@cisco.com>, "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <acee@cisco.com>, <lsr@ietf.org>
Cc: <idr@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld@ietf.org>
References: <DM5PR11MB20275193C3594D11F683734AC1C10@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR11MB20275193C3594D11F683734AC1C10@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:57:59 -0400
Message-ID: <008401d5435d$ef56a470$ce03ed50$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0085_01D5433C.68485FD0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQH4uKpLocaQRl8WcyrAqsuuLxD8NKaVSO6w
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190725-4, 07/25/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HnGNT3jy8MCgRw2LiOnI_j-lsQY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Lsr] Regd covering BGP-LS extensions for IGP ELC drafts
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 02:58:06 -0000

Ketan and Acee:

 

The IDR co-chairs (John and I) wish to reduce the number of trivial drafts for BGP-LS allocations that could be done with 1 sentence.   We discussed with the LSR chairs (Acee and Chris) that it would be reasonable for LSR to do what Ketan has requested. 

 

We suggest that the WG LC is sent to IDR and LSR in case someone wants to discuss a concern.   The LSR chairs are capable and smart.   Acee and Chris can help shepherd these LSR drafts with BGP TLV language.  

 

Sue  

 

PS – has anyone heard if Chris Hopps is a father yet? 

 

 

From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 6:43 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee); lsr@ietf.org
Cc: idr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] Regd covering BGP-LS extensions for IGP ELC drafts

 

Hi Acee/All,

 

During the LSR WG meeting on Monday, we talked about covering the BGP-LS aspects of the following two IGP drafts in those drafts instead of requiring a separate document:

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/

 

Originally, these IGP drafts introduced a new node capability that required a new BGP-LS TLV and this was captured in the IDR WG document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld/

 

However after the discussion in the LSR WG over the last few months, the approach has changed such that the IGP signalling is being done by introduction of new flags and MSD-type. This makes the corresponding BGP-LS updates quite trivial and as discussed in the LSR WG, I would recommend to add some text (proposed below) to the two IGP documents.

 

OSPF:

The OSPF extensions defined in this document can be advertised via BGP-LS [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs. The flags field of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV and the OSPFv3 PrefixOptions where the ELC Flag introduced in this document is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV (TLV 1170) of the BGP-LS IPv4/IPv6 Prefix NLRI Attribute [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16#section-2.3.2]. The new ERLD MSD-type introduced for OSPF by this document is advertised using the Node MSD TLV (TLV 266) of BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05#section-3]. 

 

ISIS:

The IS-IS extensions defined in this document can be advertised via BGP-LS [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs. The Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV where the ELC Flag is introduced in this document is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV (TLV 1170) of the BGP-LS IPv4/IPv6 Prefix NLRI Attribute [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16#section-2.3.2]. The new ERLD MSD-type introduced for IS-IS by this document is advertised using the Node MSD TLV (TLV 266) of BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05#section-3]. 

 

I am copying the IDR WG and authors of the BGP-LS ERLD draft as well for their inputs/feedback.

 

Thanks,

Ketan

 

From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 25 July 2019 16:28
To: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] IETF 105 LSR Working Group Meeting Minutes

 

I think we had some very good discussions in our sessions this week. I’ve uploaded the minutes for the both LSR sessions on Monday. Thanks much to Yingzhen Qu for taking them. 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/minutes-105-lsr-00

 

Thanks,
Acee