Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-01

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Thu, 12 June 2014 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes@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 0415B1B2876; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 05:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 O4fHsOXuO8Wz; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 05:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0236.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A8941B2863; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 05:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CH1PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.150.37) by DM2PR05MB479.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.99.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.949.11; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:14:42 +0000
Received: from [172.29.66.152] (193.110.55.19) by pod51010.outlook.com (10.255.150.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.459.0; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:14:41 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <442F4557-73F8-46B3-8ED7-E3E4BECF3523@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:14:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <349E5A21-A323-4D05-9ABB-CC6642E51E0D@juniper.net>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08280249@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <442F4557-73F8-46B3-8ED7-E3E4BECF3523@cisco.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Originating-IP: [193.110.55.19]
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BL:0; ACTION:Default; RISK:Low; SCL:0; SPMLVL:NotSpam; PCL:0; RULEID:
X-Forefront-PRVS: 02408926C4
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(428001)(24454002)(189002)(199002)(51704005)(377454003)(101416001)(74662001)(80022001)(74502001)(77096999)(89996001)(4396001)(66066001)(46102001)(31966008)(64706001)(83322001)(77156001)(97756001)(23726002)(76176999)(102836001)(50466002)(93916002)(99396002)(86362001)(561944003)(104166001)(50986999)(62966002)(92726001)(92566001)(88136002)(81542001)(82746002)(81342001)(87936001)(46406003)(57306001)(50226001)(83716003)(87286001)(36756003)(83072002)(21056001)(85852003)(79102001)(20776003)(33656002)(76482001)(77982001)(47776003)(104396001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB479; H:CH1PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None (: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@juniper.net;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/xwSn7XhfortnEofAojb8fLu9L-U
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "Stefano Previdi \(sprevidi\)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-01
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, 12 Jun 2014 12:14:46 -0000

On Jun 12, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote:
>> 5. The lack of MT-ID field in the SID/Label Binding TLV
>> 
>> I had suggested to add an MT-ID field in the SID/Label Binding TLV and Stefano had agreed to that suggestion. But it seems that the MT-ID field has not been added yet.
> 
> 
> I agree with you but since the binding TLV was not originally part of 
> the SR proposal (i.e.: it's the merge with Hannes draft) I'd let Hannes 
> to comment.


no concerns from my side, we can add a MTID subTLV to specify
what topology an advertised path does belong to.

do you want to send text for the suggested change or shall i give a stab at it ?

/hannes