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

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>, "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>; 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
>