IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] BGP-LS SR Extensions - Proposal to remove ERO Sub-TLVs from IGP SR specifications

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 9D2C712945C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 NCmDZHMiKqrU for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73D54128BC8 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10519; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497022946; x=1498232546; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=kAequBiDzpzx1i7AuxrP5qwFZLRLWZA8v3qqUuuZ6w4=; b=bYiEiByMLwY8OaEU3+OXCworSSc44Ew7Bq9j1xJ1PXb0lzzjitfrJ4y1 75XQlSJ4pLF1QIBfhMK4h9h8Y3GYwoSs43VGEb9WPRJ22VJzQDBm8cTy9 xy43Oi08Fn3Y58w5XJG8A+QKs40LDqAuAVTgnMejlh4+TBm/5k7gfMT/b E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DFAADHwDpZ/4ENJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgnBpYoENB4NtihiiN4U5ghEuhXYcgmc/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRgBKWgBGQMBAigDAgQwFAkKBBOJR2QQsDqCJotrAQEBAQYBAQEBAR4FiEABiCoGgi89gmEFnjwCkz+CBoVDij2UaQEfOIEKdBVIhUGBTXYBiDGBDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,317,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="255772762"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Jun 2017 15:42:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v59FgPdA010219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:42:25 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:42:24 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:42:24 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: BGP-LS SR Extensions - Proposal to remove ERO Sub-TLVs from IGP SR specifications
Thread-Index: AQHS4Tb9e4e4c9I/rEOFWNPhFM5fUA==
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 15:42:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D56038DA.B26D9%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D56038DAB26D9aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/b-4y6f44wGiKL1AFi5k_iuPKnTc>
Subject: [Idr] BGP-LS SR Extensions - Proposal to remove ERO Sub-TLVs from IGP SR specifications
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 09 Jun 2017 15:42:29 -0000

Note that if I am successful in getting the unused ERO extensions removed,  this will also impact draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-01.txt. These are documented in sections 2.3.7.3 – 2.3.7.7 of https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-01.txt. As with the IGPs, we could, if necessary, deprecate the associated IANA code-points.

From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:45 AM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, "isis-wg@ietf.org<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>" <isis-wg@ietf.org<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, "isis@ietf.org<mailto:isis@ietf.org>" <isis@ietf.org<mailto:isis@ietf.org>>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>
Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)

Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,

As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As document shepherd,  my proposal is that they simply be removed since they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or indefinitely ;^).

Thanks,
Acee

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email