Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf

Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 26 September 2019 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1080712004C for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 23:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4isUSeA69PGe for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 23:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16B31120045 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 23:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id c25so3573416iot.12 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 23:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zZLQ8HiOC8/C4cwfXd1LYIdeLKY8VJc8Yd3RRwyGiDk=; b=obYU7/tMpJve7ahjVuhjUarCp9vK4OY3C12ecCykurxMsvBgyxSFvgz4xcXfEvayuk eMNYvPfU0Z/x2WOfmD2bj76q0tbbSDHZow2x3dvBt7n6I3xxzJlLSjXhP8BHpWJVyyGf c7tJAVZFTXfKASporwQQeVwoNcVi2Xow1xyYqzCnMiLUxtcT7W1+YjFer9Q91lBbKj9B 4IxyFyD9QgQ36j956cdsDMAvd4oIMaZIECUqPOQdgFVOlRhJywtHdPEvoP9Ba/jrmvgD OxJgm41rfUSWivzOteuvXZEj0ffnvIPBkHL3pUofU1OwZH+IecfEflm+oNe0WzuGe3lU t5LA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zZLQ8HiOC8/C4cwfXd1LYIdeLKY8VJc8Yd3RRwyGiDk=; b=l7nBe5WbJYhGVsmK9+5Zh6Uj1yfW4pxomMExs6/vX5nmkqPBwgZI3ndh8xw4rN0ynr 5p07cjgWGtcK40z+F3MDWeFXexftktTi9W4XjRucIRqtxBOSqoRFnMGdXlMzjbtoeB5T Cn9mqBnTpqEYRyrGf5kYphPJuDG9y5aY+wFEkwZlGrNWsX7MUYIRpbxtd4O7lpmQWF99 10gAmJXbI/H/zJDS2yxqn6f7lV45MxdIbeAqcCyY44HsFmFRQm7p/GkI/Nt6fnUeFWUR XawMeE16CJ7OP+5BqRrdfF8twBdRpIPP76/gFSk9XLtybqIAvbNG0icbGBDEhBrqIMRn 5rTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXRIGTcLrYYvx0/LEJ6Zg3dtnL7j6goSZn7+SUGc+QvwnRe47ZJ iY8Nr01EntgjPaT2SYQSBdDnzr8RjobJSPD/g9U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxJPS9k/m4gkk4yGKRtNk0GYcGuaFgoa6ZDcZhqi/VbfOwhR8nNzS6WeTCbCQOrvVx1xDS+shz5qoe78mYHJ2U=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b593:: with SMTP id e141mr2121910iof.233.1569480772395; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 23:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <D2BB4EDE-97FD-4A82-A93D-45203A34A339@cisco.com> <CA0B675FC61D874D8A9EB2C7B5CEA7872B6A7E11@MISOUT7MSGUSRDG.ITServices.sbc.com> <1DBF92B2-D384-4071-9156-B20795F099AB@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1DBF92B2-D384-4071-9156-B20795F099AB@cisco.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:22:40 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEFuwki8QBRL=ZXFy46RCgTyUX4ffYvVAeRe-rFwbcqL=zLRLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebadca05936f37e9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/jleAtTnubZ-w_ZYtUUukY1FwRXQ>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:52:57 -0000

Hi Chaitanya and Acee,

How about the 'O' bit in Node-Flag-Bits TLV defined in RFC 7752 section
3.3.1.1? I suppose the node can set the 'O' bit when it wants to take
itself out from all transit paths. I know the 'O' bit is more related to
the scenario when ISIS topology is being exported in BGP-LS. But I suppose
we can use that for BGP-LS-SPF as well.

Thanks
-Pushpasis

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 8:35 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Chaitanya,
>
> I think this is a good idea and will discuss with my co-authors.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *"YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA" <cy098d@att.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:02 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>om>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
>
>
>
> Correct like a R-Bit.
>
>
>
> I have read this draft and I support it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chaitanya
>
>
>
>
>
> This communication may contain information that is privileged, or
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited.  Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the
> sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his
> or her computer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:42 AM
> *To:* YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA <cy098d@att.com>om>; lsvr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
>
>
>
> Hi Chaitanya,
>
>
>
> Exactly what do you mean by node cost out and what use case are you trying
> to satisfy. If a node wants to remove itself from the topology, it can
> simply withdraw its link NLRI. However, are you looking for a mechanism
> similar to the OSPFv3 R-Bit as a Node NLRI SPF Attribute?
>
>
>
>    R-bit
>
>       This bit (the `Router' bit) indicates whether the originator is an
>
>       active router.  If the router bit is clear, then routes that
>
>       transit the advertising node cannot be computed.  Clearing the
>
>       router bit would be appropriate for a multi-homed host that wants
>
>       to participate in routing, but does not want to forward non-
>
>       locally addressed packets.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsvr <lsvr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "YADLAPALLI, CHAITANYA"
> <cy098d@att.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:31 AM
> *To: *"lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[Lsvr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf
>
>
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> The draft does not explicitly call out mechanisms for node cost out. It
> would be good to call out mechanisms to cost out a node explicitly.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chaitanya
>
>
>
>
>
> *Chaitanya Yadlapalli*
>
> Network Infrastructure And Services
>
>
>
> *AT&T Services, Inc.*
>
> 200 S Laurel Ave, Middletown, NJ 07722
>
> o  732.420.7977  |  cy098d@att.com
>
>
>
> This communication may contain information that is privileged, or
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited.  Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the
> sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his
> or her computer.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsvr mailing list
> Lsvr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr
>