Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 22 April 2021 11:27 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 7A6C63A12D2; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_NONE=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 b_VWc0Sd67tz; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:27:00 -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 6905D3A12CE; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 04:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1660; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1619090819; x=1620300419; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qa7Hsu0CS1ypVE3L8N/eb3r48ylnob4gxzM90ByxpBw=; b=KbR0zCf2/sJAxTWXTUwRHG9+orN+qNQdhh1YvloxuNciaFZWfa2E+Blf bCghZa9fFOtDgskwleplZYvF0PZS2vNHFYuBXU+56P/9vQA8uQ2QSK/9e aDb+tNn01Dh7dmTHtLdov2F61a970l3MGHOcxv2XAw1CnozeDtRq+Mn2Z c=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAABiXIFglxbLJq1aGgEBAQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBARIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAgIBAQEBQIE+BQEBAQELAYN3AScSMYRDiCRgiD0wmm+BfAsBAQEPNAQBA?= =?us-ascii?q?YRQAoF4JjQJDgIDAQEBAwIDAQEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAQEBAQEBAWiFXYZFA?= =?us-ascii?q?QUjDwEFQRALDgoCAiMDAgJGEQYBDAYCAQGCbYMIp2l6gTKBAYRYg1WBRIEQK?= =?us-ascii?q?gGNVkOBSUKBEyeCez6HWYJhBIJAboIVULtWgxiDQZlMBQcEIYNQiwOFapBQl?= =?us-ascii?q?SWjcoFUOIFbMxoIGxWDJFAZDo4rDQmOLT8DLzgCBgEJAQEDCY0PAQE?=
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:CSu4y6/vuvUiSKMd68tuk+GRdb1zdoIgy1knxilNYDZeG/b1q+ mFmvMH2RjozBMYX389kd6NUZPwJk/035hz/IUXIPOeRwHgomSlN8VP6oHlzj3mFUTFh4hg/I 1ndLVzD8C1MEhiga/BkW2FOvsp3dXvysCVrMjEyXMFd29XQoFmqzx0EwOKVnBxLTM2YKYRML q5yo55qyG7eXIRB/7LZEUte+TYvdXEmNbHTHc9ZiIP0wWFgTO25LOSKXHxtSs2aD9Bzawv9m LIiWXCiZmLie2xyRPXygbohah+pd2J8LZ+LfCXhtNQAjvhjRvAXvUDZ5Sy+BYoveqo9FEm1P 7LrhtIBbUK11rhOkeovBDqxw7slAwL1kan41qZjXz/yPaJPQ4HNw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,242,1613433600"; d="scan'208";a="35304583"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Apr 2021 11:26:57 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 13MBQubO003934; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:26:57 GMT
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions@ietf.org
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, lsr@ietf.org, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
References: <CAMMESswF4GiLTRAYeLfhkC4w9tsr2J5YaMNFSG=979Bh2tmULw@mail.gmail.com> <836ca254-1273-7339-4c7d-f92d5e17315f@cisco.com> <CAMMESszNithwE6cGy9pkyb7Zxso=BTqwyO9oza-Ascz-5dU=jg@mail.gmail.com> <cf0a8c57-96f7-2684-8752-887887dc1831@cisco.com> <CAMMESszvHXXZpqQhrqF6MFVvpukf7vt4qLVXHocWa1JAneKXRw@mail.gmail.com> <ceab0774-4837-1cc2-23da-8a6945fbebc4@cisco.com> <CAMMESszmppR6XCurV+Gsr-DaEEf7JW6dE0OuTEn8wFqaRmdSww@mail.gmail.com> <a1473c8c-fdc1-c004-3caf-ed34eefbaf95@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxV9eL9bxf_ayms3JWn+JiUTPM09Y_MUfZ9Qt3EagA5AQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <166d725b-ffe5-c232-b5cc-6fae441ae402@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:26:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxV9eL9bxf_ayms3JWn+JiUTPM09Y_MUfZ9Qt3EagA5AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/zLSlufcXEDBTD5gGCLRc3cDXAzs>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11
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, 22 Apr 2021 11:27:05 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

I have posted an updated version of the draft that has the new 
registries defined for all flags fields defined in it.

thanks,
Peter

On 09/04/2021 22:54, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> Peter:
> 
> I’m ok with the text below.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> 
> On April 9, 2021 at 4:12:43 AM, Peter Psenak (ppsenak@cisco.com
> (mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com)) wrote:
> 
>>> 268 In cases where a locator advertisement is received in both a Prefix
>>> 269 Reachability TLV and an SRv6 Locator TLV - (e.g. prefix, prefix-
>>> 270 length, MTID all being equal and Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV),
>>> 271 the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred when
>>> 272 installing entries in the forwarding plane. This is to prevent
>>> 273 inconsistent forwarding entries between SRv6 capable and SRv6
>>> 274 incapable routers. Such preference of Prefix Reachability
>>> 275 advertisement does not have any impact on the rest of the data
>>> 276 advertised in the SRv6 Locator TLV.
>>>
>>> [major] "e.g. prefix, prefix-length, MTID all being equal and
>>> Algorithm being 0 in Locator TLV"
>>>
>>> This text should not be an example because those are the fields that
>>> should match. Please make it clear: "The locator advertisement is
>>> both TLVs is considered the same when the following fliends match..."
>>> (or something like that with better words).
>>
>> what about:
>>
>> "In case where the same prefix, with the same prefix-length, MTID and
>> algorithm is received in both a Prefix Reachability TLV and an SRv6
>> Locator TLV the Prefix Reachability advertisement MUST be preferred.."
>>>
> 
>