[OSPF] draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05

"Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com> Mon, 21 September 2015 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <anil.sn@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88CD61B322D for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HJ_iDHPUuleb for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 538AF1B322A for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BXW34656; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:29:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:29:46 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:29:38 +0800
From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "sprevidi@cisco.com" <sprevidi@cisco.com>, "cfilsfil@cisco.com" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "hannes@juniper.net" <hannes@juniper.net>, "rob.shakir@bt.com" <rob.shakir@bt.com>, "wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05
Thread-Index: AdD0efEGYmUVEmanQcKHzuWy56aFHg==
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:29:37 +0000
Message-ID: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF06C05EFEE@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF06C05EFEEnkgeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/-fhYQK0Vqs2iIOOIWix5ol_JqI8>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:29:50 -0000

Hi Authors,

In Segment Routing Architecture draft,  There is a provision to allocate multiple Adj-SIDs to same adjacency in case of bundle interface.
In IGP extension draft we need to have one more Adj-SID Sub-TLV type to distribute SID's for bundle members with bundle member ID along with link type/data & ID.

Please let me know your opinion.

Reference :


3.5.  IGP-Adjacency Segment, Adj-SID

A node MAY allocate multiple Adj-SIDs to the same adjacency.  An
   example is where the adjacency is established over a bundle
   interface.  Each bundle member MAY have its own Adj-SID.

Thanks & Regards
Anil S N

"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Postel