IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Few questions about Segment Routing extensions for BGP LS (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext)

"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Thu, 22 July 2021 08:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rainsword.wang@huawei.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 D08ED3A3D57 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 01:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 q0jlCAi5DwYv for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 01:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B96063A3D56 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 01:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GVlJ121kWz6H7jp for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:00:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.182) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:12:22 +0200
Received: from kwepeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.162) by kwepeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:12:20 +0800
Received: from kwepeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.162]) by kwepeml500001.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.162]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:12:20 +0800
From: "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
To: Boris Hassanov <bhassanov=40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Few questions about Segment Routing extensions for BGP LS (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext)
Thread-Index: AQHXfhbnLcAIV1TesESS+n5xpKJ6eatOoOhw
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 08:12:20 +0000
Message-ID: <0e2b061e46ea433e9577b9978f895327@huawei.com>
References: <1162423632.764584.1626861282633.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1162423632.764584.1626861282633@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1162423632.764584.1626861282633@mail.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.153.118]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0e2b061e46ea433e9577b9978f895327huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PHsPKJ4SvsA81ZWSmJ2vjw1vs4A>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Few questions about Segment Routing extensions for BGP LS (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext)
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: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 08:12:30 -0000

Hi Boris,

2)  draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-18 has two types of labels TLV: SID/Label TLV type 1161 and Prefix SID  TLV type 1158.  I checked several vendors implementations of BGP-LS, all of them use only Prefix SID TLV.

BGP-LS information come from ISIS or OSPF. The Prefix-SID can indicate a node. But there is no separate Node-SID defined now.


Regards,
Haibo

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Boris Hassanov
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 5:55 PM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] Few questions about Segment Routing extensions for BGP LS (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext)

Hi all,

1) Need an advice, I might be missing something but I see that Anycasi SID (3333 in the example below)  is in BGP-LS update as regular Prefix SID TLV:

 Path Attribute - BGP-LS Attribute

            Flags: 0x80, Optional, Non-transitive, Complete

                1... .... = Optional: Set

                .0.. .... = Transitive: Not set

                ..0. .... = Partial: Not set

                ...0 .... = Extended-Length: Not set

                .... 0000 = Unused: 0x0

            Type Code: BGP-LS Attribute (29)

            Length: 12

            Link State

                Prefix SID TLV

                    Type: 1158

                    Length: 8

                    Flags: 0x40, Node-SID (N)

                        0... .... = Re-advertisement (R): Not set

                        .1.. .... = Node-SID (N): Set

                        ..0. .... = No-PHP (P): Not set

                        ...0 .... = Explicit-Null (E): Not set

                        .... 0... = Value (V): Not set

                        .... .0.. = Local (L): Not set

                    Algorithm: 0

                    SID/Index: 3333

Here is confusion, how, let's say, a controller, which receives such BGP-LS update, could  distinguish it from regular Prefix/Node SID?

Unfortunately draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-18 does not clarify this issue because it only describes Prefix SID TLV type 1158. Any suggestions?

2)  draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-18 has two types of labels TLV: SID/Label TLV type 1161 and Prefix SID  TLV type 1158.  I checked several vendors implementations of BGP-LS, all of them use only Prefix SID TLV.
Why the draft does not have some conditions or clarifications when to use SID/Label TLV and when Prefix SID TLV?

Thank you.

SY,
Boris

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status