Re: [OSPF] [ospf-sr] regarding Algorithm TLV and other TLVs in RI LSA

Peter Psenak <> Fri, 28 April 2017 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D1112951C; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y6M3IKnqp6qa; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCBC51294C0; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1758; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493366165; x=1494575765; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fSpgwxLdAYnmvI75w97Fm+tEMoPTLoBRHlNh8QV1x2k=; b=hA+623nTOdnBykRZP/ULZwrL6GF0kk+PcBZBcbIzoN+k/6U/2AyZyasH CxiKA5C4HCjqt4IWWu9DncdLAWM2MCbIuirg3yEOHrsOiiGL3Fb3XgeAx F+W+/wi4yTisd6wLVWFg9+BnfUnJo2uhzo4ESERa1HQqr724NG2rMXu5i s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,387,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="652499248"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2017 07:56:01 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3S7u1u9024263; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:56:01 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:56:02 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <>
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: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
References: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885089AE6B@blreml501-mbb>
In-Reply-To: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885089AE6B@blreml501-mbb>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [ospf-sr] regarding Algorithm TLV and other TLVs in RI LSA
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:59:20 -0000


On 28/04/17 09:12 , Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem wrote:
> Dear Authors,
> 1.As per section 3.1 SR- Algorithm TLV ,
>         "If the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV appears in multiple Router Information LSAs
>            that have different flooding scopes, the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV in the Router Information LSA with
>            the lowest flooding scope SHOULD be used."
>        “The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined opaque flooding
>         scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)).  For the purpose of
>         SR-Algorithm TLV advertisement, area scope flooding is required.”
>        As per first  statement, we should use lowest scope (Ex: if the
> algorithm TLV is received in AS ,Area and link, then link SR algorithm
> is preferred)

link scope is not valid per the paragraph above. The first sentence 
talks about RI LSA in general. Second one says what is required for 
SR-Alg. TLV.

>         But second statement indicates we use area scope for algorithm
> TLV. These two statements may cause little confusion while implementation.

not really.

First statement resolves the conflict in case the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV 
appears in multiple RI LSAs.

Second statement says that area scope is the minimum needed. AS scope 
works as well BTW.

>        As per my understanding,  Area scope will be preferred since Node
> visibility is at area scope.


> 2.Even “SR Local Block Sub-TLV SRMS and Preference Sub-TLV” are top
> level TLVs in RI LSA like SR-Algorithm TLV and “SID/Label Range TLV”,
> may be it is better to replace “Sub TLV” with TLV.



> Thanks and Regards,
> Veerendranath