[Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions - small change
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 15 November 2018 14:48 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 5A86C12D4EF for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 06:48:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.971
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 2lmi1W37NwUW for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 06:48:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF6312785F for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 06:48:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=772; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1542293295; x=1543502895; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZgKwiBL5+PorzWQyX8V2WuB6wb0/7+itNPzE/ZWOE+c=; b=Id3L/792K1gxYUgUoVMQAbG1iglHSgz2BdWiijRIL+IT1NOPx9Yjcs7Y Z+cdvAeR06padQlDUoaw3UtZ3cBvmna9J3qwxzETVsqNuoznH5V9P76J4 dgelF3mHhaHN2S+iTX0eCqV7MrGQSqurPhUu+ePzTNxVbKrr6aIjdrjC+ U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D6AAA/hu1b/xbLJq1iHQEBBQEHBQGBVAUBCwGDWRKNFqZaCgOIXjcGDQEDAQECAQECbR0LhXsvET0WGAMCAQIBSw0IAQGFH6lGDoVBhGWMHIFAP458Ao9OkBYJkSQYiVqHHIJ0lROBXCIngS4zGggbFYMokFo+A45lAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,236,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="8011755"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Nov 2018 14:48:12 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.43] ([10.147.24.43]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wAFEmAsc025789 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:48:11 GMT
Message-ID: <5BED872A.7090201@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:48:10 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.147.24.43, [10.147.24.43]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/tMK25k8BG9qT912U7O6m2gPCboQ>
Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions - small change
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:48:18 -0000
Hi, as a part of the RtgDir review we got a comment about the usage of the IA bit in the OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV (Section 5). We defined this bit for OSPFv2 originally. In OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Range TLV is carried as a top level TLV of the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA, which is not specific to any route-type, so we needed a mechanism to prevent redundant flooding of Prefix Range TLVs between areas. In OSPFv3 however, we are advertising the Extended Prefix Range TLV in the type specific LSAs, so we can use standard rules to prevent the "looping" of advertisements. So we want to remove the IA bit from the flags field in OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV. I would like to know whether anyone has any objection. thanks, Peter
- [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-exte… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-… Mahendra Singh Negi
- Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-… Alvaro Retana