Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Thu, 14 December 2017 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49ED012940B; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:37:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 Im9oEt3FSAhi; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5A56124319; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:37:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=15484; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513265828; x=1514475428; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=SAr2OlBZ3CfD6grxvNx0CKVDKQYbHaScSGpeO9rohmI=; b=AG/1OU65CFQnqmMxyWalpfm4za94DBb7YDNy1gtREfunc/VFOcVMlbeW VkzHEQqYGEUF/m07oHscUShEIxUcRP7N+cvfT/sPLXY75EcekvASg+BvG 4nHcUkQg+Ri5xgFLl4cymLb2iUfGIjQXOxBytJEOAa5g6tFBuBagnri3q 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CFAQBUmTJa/5NdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJKdGZ0JweDe4ohjwaBfYh8iEyFToIVChgBDIUWAhqEXT8YAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBayiFIwEBAQEDAQEhCkELEAIBCA4DBAEBKAMCAgIfBgsUCQgCBAENB?= =?us-ascii?q?QiJPkwDFRCodIInhzYNgxsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYNggg6BVoF?= =?us-ascii?q?oAYMrgmpEAYIUEIJfgmMFh3CRY4kVPQKHe4dcU4R1gh+GEotEikeCTj6IbQIRG?= =?us-ascii?q?QGBOgEfOYFObxU6gimEVngBiAIrgQiBFQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.45,400,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="44096445"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Dec 2017 15:37:07 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBEFb7vb012616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:37:07 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:37:06 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:37:06 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: Alia Atlas <>, Harish R Prabhu <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict
Thread-Index: AQHTdOnRrnZJ7yhWikm/7R+GH3BYZaNDU1OA//+hfyA=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:37:06 +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_d763611576b8441e933a304f297099f2XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:37:10 -0000

Folks –

The conflict for SRMS Preference sub-TLV in has already been noted and has been eliminated in the new version of the IS-IS SR draft which I expect to publish tomorrow. Note that although the IS-IS SR draft was given early allocation of some code points, a couple more sub-TLVs have been defined since then and these values have not yet been assigned by IANA. SRMS preference was one of them – though at the time of the writing of the version which added this the early allocation for MSD had not yet happened.

Alia - I believe the MSD draft already is using the code points which have been assigned by early allocation – so I do not know what further update you believe is required in that document.


From: Isis-wg [] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:01 AM
To: Harish R Prabhu <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] TLV conflict

Hi Harish,

Please take a look at
where it is clear that draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd has an early temporary registration for type 23.

draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-02 should be updated to clearly state the IANA allocations that have already happened.

draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-13 MUST be updated to clearly state the IANA allocations
that have already happened for it (e.g. values 2 & 19) and to STOP SQUATTING on already allocated

Thank you for bringing this to our attention!


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Harish R Prabhu <<>> wrote:
While going through the I-Ds pertaining to SR attributes, it was found
that the following 2 TLVs have been assigned the same Type number

SRMS Preference Sub-TLV :

Node MSD Advertisement :

 Both these sections talk about different sub tlvs under
router_capabilities TLV, but type value assigned is 23 for both.

Request to address this.

Harish R Prabhu
Bangalore, India.<>

Isis-wg mailing list<>