Re: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 - 2 week WG Adoption call (6/14 to 6/28)

["Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>]

Also FWIW, there are no codepoints allocated by IANA or even suggested in the drafts for the OSPF and ISIS drafts.

So Jeff, I think it might not be still too late to fix even in the IGPs if the authors of those drafts agree to it. And to restate, we are only talking of moving out RLDC and ELC parts remain in those respective drafts.

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: 15 June 2017 14:49
To: 'Jeff Tantsura' <[e-mail]>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; 'idr wg' <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 - 2 week WG Adoption call (6/14 to 6/28)

Hi Jeff,

On the point of the IGPs. There are 2 parts there the ELC capability and the RLDC. The later part (RLDC) is somewhat independent IMHO. As a corollary IGPs signal SR capability separately from the base MSD size supported.

I see that the corresponding drafts have expired recently. I am not sure if there are implementations out there already for these. Is it too late to change/fix this?

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 15 June 2017 14:20
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'idr wg' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 - 2 week WG Adoption call (6/14 to 6/28)

Ketan,

I’m of the same opinion, wrt IGP’s – RLD has been there for quite some time already: draft-ietf-(ospf|isis)-mpls-elc

Cheers,
Jeff
From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 20:32
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, 'idr wg' <[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]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 - 2 week WG Adoption call (6/14 to 6/28)

This document is useful, however I would like to suggest if the authors could consider merging this with draft-tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd where the RLD becomes another MSD sub-type. I believe draft-tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd provides a much better extensible mechanism for signalling of other such label limits at link and node level. Not to mention, this also is more efficient encoding.

While I am not sure if similar would be possible at this stage in the under-lying IGPs, but it is perhaps not too late to consider for BGP-LS protocol?

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 15 June 2017 05:50
To: 'idr wg' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 - 2 week WG Adoption call (6/14 to 6/28)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-vandevelde-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 (6/14/2017 to 6/28/2017).    The chairs would appreciate if the operators would indicate whether they would deploy this draft.

The authors should within the first 5 days do the following:

1)      Send a statement to the WG indicating whether you know of any IPR

2)      Indicate whether you know of existing implementations

3)      Please respond to the IDR list questions on a daily basis

Sue Hares and John Scudder

_______________________________________________ Idr mailing list [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr