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

"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <> Sat, 07 April 2018 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93DB129C70; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 02:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 qaNXiqsR3zEJ; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 02:31:16 -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 333AD126D74; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 02:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=23396; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1523093476; x=1524303076; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=VdetPlZTXc7xolaClnyJcFnX9U2hxcmEbDgfXKhHQ1M=; b=JUIQwv63HGjL8D8CCHtCj89hj3sRzCrNiPg5YFqzmcudBaBmKSx+7rWa JiCD2HIKrOhc2EfcpXxkVfJIk+VMbYwHNkeXugegSThFVdw9Os8wcRtG6 s8wPFCM2fsq8RgJMXuvif0XfBXh7bq1Yw1MJ3LhFWBTyPI1Ir8dWA1kcl o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DjAAAMj8ha/40NJK1dGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJNdWFvKAqDVYgBjQuBdIEPhmOLdhSBZgsehGUCGoIfITQ?= =?us-ascii?q?YAQIBAQEBAQECbBwMhSIBAQEBAyMKTBACAQgRAwEBASgDAgICHxEUCQgCBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?NBQiEIUwDFQ+qeYIchwYNgSuCGQWHa4FUP4EMgwSCT0ICAgEBgSBYFoJKglQ?= =?us-ascii?q?CiA2IQoZMLAgChVSFYoJ1jEmJHDyGBwIREwGBJAEcOIFScBU6gkMJghcXEYh?= =?us-ascii?q?IhT5vAY1cgRcBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,418,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="375882002"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Apr 2018 09:31:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w379VFn5012981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 7 Apr 2018 09:31:15 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 04:31:14 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 7 Apr 2018 04:31:14 -0500
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Alvaro Retana <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload)
Thread-Index: AQHTzfN3DWw/EyaVZE6AHcjMbJplMaP1CaRQ
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 09:31:14 +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_0c10efd9cce84208a60b6c06412331c7XCHALN008ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload)
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: Sat, 07 Apr 2018 09:31:19 -0000

Hi Alvaro/All,

I agree with Acee. We have implementations for the BGP-LS EPE draft that are shipping and deployed and those code points were assigned via early allocation and reflected in the registry. They must not be changed.

I don’t see any issue with correcting the allocation for the BGP-LS OSPF link-overload TLV (to whatever value is available/assigned by IANA from the correct registry mentioned below).


From: Idr <> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 07 April 2018 03:36
To: Alvaro Retana <>om>;
Subject: Re: [Idr] Implementations of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload)

Hi Alvaro,

There are implementations and deployments -

Also, it looks to me that 1101 is assigned to Peer Node SID already -

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.


From: Alvaro Retana <<>>
Date: Friday, April 6, 2018 at 2:51 PM
To: IDR List <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Acee Lindem <<>>
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?