Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 20:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544E421E8087; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:58:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.912, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZs7TTM7Jec3; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC99811E80DC; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:58:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4094; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383944326; x=1385153926; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cCFKYHoX5aaFXKsBAmXs6sRGe2gggLkMlNa/4qdJOfo=; b=DFwa+KgL356Cdc1v5iwIqv9b7xGkzBm0OMX+zZY3IsbVGav2x2xhw+/U HnTCCY1CHEAxIeOLQkTAqKJwWsk7k32Bxt4uscA+ugSzheWkK244swdLG /MMvOIMB9pJKD85vkvfaJTqW0jhYRWlT9gCxPOocqssFkDB+71lCWwTZf 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAHRPfVKrRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4g0e8IoExFnSCJQEBAQQBAQEvATsKARAJAhgEBRYECQIJAwIBAgEVJQsGDQEFAgEBh3wOjn6bWAiSPYEljkIHgmeBSQOJDzOOTYEvhQ6LToFogV8b
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,662,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="96981292"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2013 20:58:45 +0000
Received: from [10.21.118.82] ([10.21.118.82]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA8KwhfZ020499; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:58:43 GMT
Message-ID: <527D5083.6070904@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:58:43 -0800
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0822770A@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527C2606.5060906@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082277AB@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527C32B0.5070101@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082277D4@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527D41E3.1050008@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227A99@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527D4B80.6070308@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227AEE@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227AEE@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:58:50 -0000
Xiaohu, I understand what you started this thread with. What I'm trying to say is that even if OSPF separates the advertisement of prefix and prefix SID/label, you should not be using the SID/label advertisement without the actual prefix reachability advertisement. thanks, Peter On 11/8/13 12:50 , Xuxiaohu wrote: > Hi Peter, > > You misunderstood what I have said. On the contrary, the OSPF extension draft looks fine to me. It's the ISIS extension draft that I believed should follow the similar approach defined in the OSPF extension draft. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > ________________________________________ > 发件人: Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com] > 发送时间: 2013年11月9日 4:37 > 收件人: Xuxiaohu > 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing > > Xiaohu, > > OSPF SR draft clearly states that newly defined Extended Prefix Opaque > LSAs do not contribute to the prefix reachability. What you are asking > for is to negate that and install forwarding entries based on what is in > the EP-LSA, without prefix being advertised in any regular LSA. Once you > start to do that you will end up with all sorts of problems. I would > like to keep the current definition in place. > > > thanks, > Peter > > > On 11/8/13 12:04 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Sure. However, why not borrow the idea of longest-matching algorithm proposed in that RFC to SR? >> >> BR, >> Xiaohu >> >> ________________________________________ >> 发件人: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com] >> 发送时间: 2013年11月9日 3:56 >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >> 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing >> >> Xiaohu, >> >> there is no LDP in the SR network, so RFC5283 is not applicable. >> >> thanks, >> Peter >> >> On 11/7/13 17:28 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> The 'longest-match algorithm' for LIB installation has been proposed by RFC5283. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Xiaohu >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> 发件人: Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com] >>> 发送时间: 2013年11月8日 8:39 >>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >>> 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >>> 主题: Re: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing >>> >>> Xiaohu, >>> >>> On 11/7/13 16:23 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>> ] >>>> if you aggregate on area/L1L2 boundary, SIDs/labels for individual >>>> prefixes that are covered by the aggregate are useless in the area to >>>> which you aggregate - there will be no FIB entries for these individual >>>> prefixes in such area. So if you aggregate, there is no need to >>>> propagate SIDs/labels for aggregated prefixes. >>>> >>>> [Xiaohu] "In the multi-area/level >>>> scenario where route summary between areas/levels is required, the IP >>>> longest-match algorithm SHOULD be used by SR-capable routers when >>>> processing label bindings advertised by the mapping server" For more details, please read the Introduction section of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00 >>> >>> I don't understand. If you summarize, then only the summary prefix will >>> be visible in the backbone (and remote areas) and installed in the FIB >>> on all routers in these areas. >>> >>> Where would you apply 'longest-match algorithm' when you only see the >>> single summary? How would you use the SID/label for prefixes that are >>> covered by the summary? >>> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> Isis-wg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> Isis-wg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> >
- [Isis-wg] 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF e… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OS… Peter Psenak
- [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OS… Xuxiaohu
- [Isis-wg] 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF e… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency betwee… Peter Psenak
- [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency betwee… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency be… Peter Psenak
- [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency be… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistenc… Peter Psenak
- [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistenc… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsis… Peter Psenak