[Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02

Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Thu, 31 July 2014 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <cbowers@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655DA1A0178 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0W_j6auJvT5Z for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (dns-bn1lp0143.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDF9A1A008F for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR05MB289.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.19) by BLUPR05MB705.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.207.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:42:03 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.27) by BLUPR05MB289.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:42:02 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) by BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:42:01 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
Thread-Index: Ac+tB/m1SgwPt+aOTIqniJ++F94cJQ==
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:42:00 +0000
Message-ID: <2f151ad2a667450e9e861d94458ee73f@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.11]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 0289B6431E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(199002)(189002)(37854004)(164054003)(15975445006)(20776003)(4396001)(85306003)(81342001)(21056001)(2656002)(74502001)(74316001)(79102001)(77982001)(76576001)(105586002)(33646002)(15202345003)(110136001)(31966008)(87936001)(76482001)(2351001)(86362001)(99396002)(46102001)(80022001)(107046002)(101416001)(54356999)(85852003)(50986999)(66066001)(106356001)(95666004)(229853001)(83322001)(92566001)(19580395003)(107886001)(83072002)(81542001)(24736002)(108616003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB289; H:BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2f151ad2a667450e9e861d94458ee73fBLUPR05MB292namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/NZeq585C9TSfKoZbN9PtvbaLCcY
Subject: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:42:07 -0000

All,

The current text of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 does not clearly explain the usage of the Binding TLV for advertising LSPs created using other protocols.  I would like to propose the following text to be included as section 2.5 .

Thanks,
Chris

----------------

2.5 Binding TLV usage examples

This section gives examples of using the Binding TLV to advertise SID/label bindings associated with RSVP-TE, LDP, and BGP labeled-unicast LSPs.  It also includes an example of advertising a context-id for egress node protection.  All of the examples assume that the Binding TLV weight=1 and metric=100.

2.5.1 Advertising an RSVP-TE LSP using the Binding TLV

Assume that R1 has signaled an RSVP-TE LSP to egress router (R4) with router-id=10.4.4.4, with ER0 = (192.1.2.2 [strict], 192.2.3.2 [strict], 192.3.4.2 [strict]). R1 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=1099)  using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV.

Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC prefix=10.4.4.4
SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=1099
ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100
IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.1.2.2
IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.2.3.2
IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.3.4.2

2.5.2 Advertising an LDP LSP using the Binding TLV

Assume that R5 has learned a FEC-label binding via LDP for FEC=10.8.8.8/32.  R5 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=5099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV.

Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC prefix=10.8.8.8
SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=5099
ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100
IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.8.8.8

2.5.3 Advertising a BGP labeled-unicast LSP using the Binding TLV

Assume that R9 has used BGP labeled-unicast to learn a label binding for prefix 10.15.15.15/32 with BGP next-hop=10.12.12.12.   R9 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=7099)  using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV.

Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC prefix=10.15.15.15
SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=7099
ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100
IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.12.12.12

2.5.4 Advertising a context-id for egress node protection using the Binding TLV

Assume that R22 is configured in the protector role to provide egress node protection for R21 using context-id=10.0.0.21.  R22 can advertise the label associated with this context-id (with label value=8099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV.

Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=1, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC prefix=10.0.0.21 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=8099

----------------