Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 29 December 2014 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084331A0011; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:19:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 zk8mmS3bEpqJ; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:19:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F34481A001B; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 00:19:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1859; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1419841148; x=1421050748; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZywmLXPhoLbEXtUVCRDS9oYPUaviqCyH82nzBvCLno0=; b=L3XOx7hGAyZHuEtGiJIcnwBYo2Tc3ySRCmqexlvjQjhZoFPbHh3zCC9H NsXqbhq+P5dB4UlXeU+K/mnfJ5ZouJQhn75+fkjAJEaAWzBULUkgnDJpd e5XkISXaB8cW4BvtX0bX7eHnwUSqqvBurWD5ixBR//4w60pXD4Wg4333c I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsEEAFgNoVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABcg1hYxmYKhXMCgSEBAQEBAX2EDAEBAQQBAQE1NgoBDAQLEQQBAQEJFggHCQMCAQIBFR8JCAYBDAEFAgEBiCgNxQQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBI8MGgEBTwcGhCMBBJcIhgSLTCKDbz0xgQyBNwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,659,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="291422575"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2014 08:19:06 +0000
Received: from [10.61.76.181] (ams3-vpn-dhcp3253.cisco.com [10.61.76.181]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBT8J4N8025385; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:19:05 GMT
Message-ID: <54A10E78.6030006@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:19:04 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org>
References: <BY1PR0501MB13819883015276791F20D631D5540@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <54A10B35.4030301@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381B131A68B321264B7E930D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY1PR0501MB1381B131A68B321264B7E930D5510@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/0TNUwtG6jPeZn45ar0bqRM8o27s
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 29 Dec 2014 08:19:13 -0000

Shraddha,

the problem is that the node that is advertising the node-sid can not 
advertise any data regarding the protection of such prefix, because the 
prefix is locally attached.

thanks,
Peter

On 12/29/14 09:15 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
> Peter,
>
> If there is a service which has to use un-protected path and while building such a path if the node-sids
> Need to be used (one reason could be label stack compression) , then there has to be unprotected node-sid that
> this service can make use of.
>
> Prefix -sids could also be used to represent different service endpoints which makes it even more relevant to have
> A means of representing  unprotected paths.
>
> Would be good to hear from others on this, especially operators.
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:35 PM
> To: Shraddha Hegde; draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
>
> Shraddha,
>
> node-SID is advertised by the router for the prefix that is directly attached to it. Protection for such local prefix does not mean much.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
> On 12/24/14 11:57 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>> Authors,
>> We have a "backup flag" in adjacency sid to indicate whether the label
>> is protected or not.
>> Similarly. I think we need a flag in prefix-sid as well to indicate
>> whether the node-sid is to be protected or not.
>> Any thoughts on this?
>> Rgds
>> Shraddha
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>>
>
> .
>