Re: [Idr] Implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro, et al,
Note that the version  the OSPF Link Overload draft (aka, OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown) sitting on the RFC Editor’s queue has a non-conflicting value suggested. See excerpt below:

BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and
   Attribute TLVs [RFC7752]

   i)Graceful-Link-Shutdown TLV - Suggested 1121

Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM
To: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>, IDR List <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload)
Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM

Hi Alvaro,

Ok – it sounds like you have this under control ;^) Retain 1101 for BGP EPE and use the assign a new value for the OSPF Link Overload Attribute…

Thanks,
Acee

From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:17 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, IDR List <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload)

On April 6, 2018 at 6:05:52 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) wrote:

Acee:

Hi!
There are implementations and deployments - https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe%20
Also, it looks to me that 1101 is assigned to Peer Node SID already - https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv
Also, I do not see early allocation for the BGP-LS OSPF Link Overload TLV although one is requested in the corresponding draft. Hence, I don’t see what the problem is.

Let me try again.  In short, I’m trying to figure out how serious the problem is...

The early allocation for the BGP-LS OSPF Link Overload TLV was (mistakenly) requested from the BGP-LS NLRI-Types registry [1] and a value of 1101 was assigned.  As you know, that mistake was detected late in the process (during IESG Evaluation!) and fixed in the -15 version of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload (-16 is the current one).

The BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry [2] is the correct registry, and, as you point above, the 1101 value there was assigned to the Peer Node SID (draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe).

With this e-mail, and a similar one I sent to the lsr WG, I am trying to figure out the impact (if any) to existing implementation from what could be seen as overlapping assignments, and the actions we may need IANA to take.  For example, if there were implementations of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload *and* draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe with the same value (1101) then we would have a significant problem.  However, the only answer in the lsr list has been to point out that there are no known implementations of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload — and, from this thread, there is confirmation that implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe exist.

This is probably the best result, and makes the registry cleanup easier.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#nlri-types

[2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv

Thanks,
Acee



From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, April 6, 2018 at 2:51 PM
To: IDR List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload)

Dear idr WG:

draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload [1] defines a new BGP-LS Graceful-Link-Shutdown TLV.  When an early allocation was requested, it was mistakenly requested from the "BGP-LS NLRI-Types" registry [2], not from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs” registry [3].  IANA allocated a value according to the request: 1101.

The mistake wasn't noticed until the document was in IESG Evaluation -- we are in the process of correcting it.  However, the 1101 code point in the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs” registry corresponds to the Peer-Node-SID, an early allocation made to draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe [4], which says that "several early implementations exist".

Are there implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe with the 1101 code point?  Are there deployments of those implementations?

Thanks!

Alvaro.


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/
[2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#nlri-types
[3] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe/