Re: [Lsr] OSPFv3 Implementations of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Fri, 15 May 2020 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8273A0923; Fri, 15 May 2020 04:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 IR1BjkS8nKpZ; Fri, 15 May 2020 04:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 560193A0914; Fri, 15 May 2020 04:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=991; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1589541758; x=1590751358; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZDinxfSDv5nBSSM3qlYjwjrzNijhzcU8h1jq8kPiQqM=; b=UVQQO0rol2mSryeylyGjky7TMpS6OII4L3h+vr/VF3u2b+BUt4q5jlXK ZLC0LUuTi0or2mPLffGI10EUDJAxYVhLFOMYSJ2O9nf54fQQhjbut+Uat lzrL2RD3AjJdZsx7qTCQsA/0f9QCtqR3qcGU9iLlSoG+gxkeCqHECdTdh 8=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,395,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="26229595"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 15 May 2020 11:22:36 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.51] (ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com [10.60.140.51]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04FBMZk7024297; Fri, 15 May 2020 11:22:36 GMT
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, lsr@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESswmfcfOgstP_na5YFAf_DJWiZ5hnp16rKchReRXsY0jCA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <972c1a01-3a3d-3f9e-54be-77f131ba2827@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 13:22:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswmfcfOgstP_na5YFAf_DJWiZ5hnp16rKchReRXsY0jCA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.51, ams-ppsenak-nitro2.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/QQG2hXtzcnepU_pc2Tgq7upQl28>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] OSPFv3 Implementations of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 11:22:41 -0000

Hi,

I'm going to update the draft to use bit 0x40 in "OSPFv3 Prefix Options 
(8 bits) registry" for E-Flag (ELC Flag).

thanks,
Peter

On 07/05/2020 15:10, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> Dear lsr WG:
> 
> If you’ve been following the progress of this document, you will have 
> noticed that it is already in IESG Evaluation.
> 
> IANA discovered a typo in the draft; the current text says "Bit 0x04 in 
> the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits) registry has been assigned to the 
> E-Flag (ELC Flag)”.   However, the value assigned by IANA is 0x40.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have an OSPFv3 implementation of this document?  If so, 
> which value is used, 0x04 or 0x40?  Are there deployments?
> 
> 
> The Shepherd report doesn’t mention any implementations, and with the 
> help of the authors it has already been confirmed that cisco, Nokia and 
> Huawei don’t have an OSPFv3 implementation.
> 
> 
> Please respond by COB on May 14.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.