Re: [Idr] Regarding segment routing capability bit set in ŒRouter Informational Capabilities TLV¹ of RI LSA

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 23 November 2016 11:53 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 25D1712999E; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:53:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.018 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=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 LosTP9B6oYqV; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6C841299A7; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 03:53:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9200; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1479902018; x=1481111618; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=BPuu5v76onFXcid6ankMdEsTiulxpgk/PXAJDfw62+Y=; b=FMPnvfoHeTfDJeeKll6mZEDCa17fEo/byM6Qc9e0P4iM/C/WiWs+c34q pkYvzn5+fm9IpVcfTxoPi8BDh8IM6MFJ5NGHYc9Ta198mLId1EUdKgvwU Rms3NBRZm8vlrw/Otm00kPnx4LEd6mGVvcjgqX2WE9UdYOxfo8XGJi2v2 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B4AQC9gjVY/5tdJa1eGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgnNFAQEBAQEfWIECB405lxqPVIUfggeGIYIXPxQBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIR?= =?us-ascii?q?oAQEBBC1MEgEIEQMBAiQEORQJCgQOBYhtsWuLagEBAQEBAQEBAgEBAQEBAQEBH?= =?us-ascii?q?4sZhGmFQQWaTwGQf5AxjWqECwEeN4EUHoMxHBiBRXKHOIENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,538,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217";a="178435332"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Nov 2016 11:53:37 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uANBrb5t026541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:53:37 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 06:53:36 -0500
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; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 06:53:36 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?Windows-1252?Q?[Idr]_Regarding_segment_routing_capability_bit_set_in_?= =?Windows-1252?Q?=8CRouter_Informational_Capabilities_TLV=B9__of_RI_LSA?=
Thread-Index: AQHSRYA5twd4v7Xem0+i9tRll1kaOg==
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:53:36 +0000
Message-ID: <D45AECDC.8A7DB%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: [10.116.152.202]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D45AECDC8A7DBaceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/hiBhPF_Lir4hDf3b-Zrc0dcrjuA>
Cc: "'idr@ietf.org'" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] =?windows-1252?q?Regarding_segment_routing_capability_bit_s?= =?windows-1252?q?et_in_=8CRouter_Informational_Capabilities_TLV=B9__of_RI?= =?windows-1252?q?_LSA?=
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:53:41 -0000

Hi Veerandranath,

Since an algorithm and SID/Label range is required for segment-routing operation in OSPF, no bit is necessary. If a bit were to be allocated, it would go in the RI functional capabilities rather than the informational capabilities.

Thanks,
Acee


From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com<mailto:veerendranatharv@huawei.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:48 AM
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>
Cc: IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] Regarding segment routing capability bit set in ‘Router Informational Capabilities TLV’ of RI LSA

Dear Authors,
While advertising Segment Routing capabilities in RI LSA, as per draft there is ‘no bit’ is allocated in ‘Router Informational Capabilities TLV’  for segment routing capability.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This specification updates several existing OSPF registries.

9.1.  OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry

   o 8 (IANA Preallocated) - SR-Algorithm TLV

   o 9 (IANA Preallocated) - SID/Label Range TLV

   o 12 - SR Local Block Sub-TLV

   o 13 - SRMS Preference Sub-TLV



Whether bit set in ‘Router Informational Capabilities TLV’  is not required for segment routing capability , to notify neighbors?

Regards,
Veerendranath