Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Mon, 12 June 2017 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.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 10DE7126B6E; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 05:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 YyXVustrfLHr; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 05:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B59521205F1; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 05:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) by opfednr26.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 04F7720348; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:50:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.66]) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C094E1A0062; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:50:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06]) by OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::95e2:eb4b:3053:fabf%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:50:06 +0200
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
Thread-Index: AQHS41RxkDp00xecFEeeXiZuhgxE8qIhJOwQ
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:50:05 +0000
Message-ID: <25722_1497271806_593E8DFE_25722_1913_2_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A4777B7CF@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <D5602C7F.B268A%acee@cisco.com> <593AD535.2060905@cisco.com> <593E4E3D.7010105@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <593E4E3D.7010105@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/SiX5c7X2GgkgC0g5ysBRbdt8v3Y>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:50:12 -0000

Hello SPRING WG,

I'd like to encourage discussion on this thread.

The related questions seem to be:
- Binding SIDs:
	-  Is there any implementation?
	- Is it useful?
	- Does it need to be specified?

- Binding SIDs advertised in IGP:
	-  Is there any implementation?
	 - Is it useful?
	- Does it need to be specified?

As of today, there seem to be multiple SPRING (related) document that make reference (define/use) to the Binding SIDs. e.g.
- architecture https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11#section-3.5.2
- MPLS instantiation https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-08#section-2
- non-protected paths https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-litkowski-spring-non-protected-paths-01#section-3.3
- SR policies: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-00#section-7


However, it also seems a priori possible to define Binding SIDs and not advertised them in the IGP. (e.g. by keeping them local to the PCE)

On a side note, if the Binding SIDs are removed from the IGP, do they need to be removed from the BGP-LS extensions? [+IDR chairs]

Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno

> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:18 AM
 > To: OSPF WG List; spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
 > Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org
 > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect
 > OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
 > 
 > Hi,
 > 
 > I would like to get some feedback on the usage of the SID/Label Binding TLV.
 > 
 > Is there any implementation that uses SID/Label Binding TLV for
 > advertising the SID/Label binding to a FEC as specified in section 6 of
 > the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16 or section 2.4 of
 > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-12?
 > 
 > If not, do we see this as something we want to preserve in the IGP SR
 > drafts?
 > 
 > ISIS uses The SID/Label Binding TLV to advertise
 > prefixes to SID/Label mappings, which is known to be supported by
 > several implementations and that piece needs to be preserved.
 > 
 > thanks,
 > Peter
 > 
 > On 09/06/17 19:04 , Peter Psenak wrote:
 > > Acee,
 > >
 > > my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label
 > > Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for
 > > SRMS advertisement like in ISIS.
 > >
 > > thanks,
 > > Peter
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
 > >> 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
 > >>
 > >
 > > .
 > >
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > OSPF mailing list
 > OSPF@ietf.org
 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.