Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 16 August 2016 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18AC712D887 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.769
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.769 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=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 czHaMdDitVWw for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9942312D886 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3545; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471359253; x=1472568853; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9nh/734k53Czux+PLAn24bngnXHMtqTKQ+FY/kGie08=; b=XFnOYgS5qr9rrC7P2lHiqyCZJ2Q8SavJZg2PsSB8ftHaH3Fr8wS2EeXH qjsB/Aqo0k0XCtzBWt8OT6Vh11mWzBW1CtZfXVHgyUak0/Swig8oR77g9 Nub/XdNJ/8H6bgpeO9JsyAR+bhepcbokb1IFJweaVfM1J6TwDMu6jfmJS I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DPAQC7J7NX/xbLJq1ehBt8uUeBfSSFeQKCCxQCAQEBAQEBAV4nhF4BAQUBATY2Cg0ECw4DBAEBAQkWCAcJAwIBAgEVHwkIBgEMBgIBAYgtDr4oAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWGKoRNhECFWwEEmUGPGYFrhFyDDyOFTIZlhVODeB42ghIcgU46MocXAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="683794806"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Aug 2016 14:54:11 +0000
Received: from [10.61.105.168] (dhcp-10-61-105-168.cisco.com [10.61.105.168]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7GEsBOM012737; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:54:11 GMT
Message-ID: <57B32AF0.5060300@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:02:08 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
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: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <5791D96B.6080907@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB2829B34A5B8AB2F4489DC2AFA9060@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57B1AA09.3070008@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB28296BF24F47EB6889CEE186A9130@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR05MB28296BF24F47EB6889CEE186A9130@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/0lpBOBEG5EKqrbbPIlfT0ws5EB8>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:54:17 -0000

Hi Chris,

I'll update the draft along those lines.

thanks,
Peter


On 16/08/16 16:02 , Chris Bowers wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I suggest changing the paragraph to read as below to make this clearer.
>
> =====
>     The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional.  It MAY only be advertised once
>     in the Router Information Opaque LSA.  If the SID/Label Range TLV, as
>     defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the SR-Algorithm TLV MUST
>     also be advertised.  If a router C advertises a Prefix-SID sub-TLV for algorithm X
>     but does not advertise the SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV with algorithm X, then
>     a router receiving that advertisement MUST ignore the Prefix-SID
>     advertisement from router C.  If router B does not advertise the
>     SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should not
>     forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X advertised by
>     some router D using a path that would require router B to forward traffic using
>     algorithm X.
> =====
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:40 AM
> To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> sorry for the delay, I was on PTO during last two weeks.
> Please see inline:
>
> On 03/08/16 16:45 , Chris Bowers wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> Taking a looking at the whole paragraph into this sentence was added,
>> I am not sure how to interpret it.
>>
>>      The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional.  It MAY only be advertised once
>>      in the Router Information Opaque LSA.  If the SID/Label Range TLV, as
>>      defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the SR-Algorithm TLV MUST
>>      also be advertised.  If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by the
>>      node, such node is considered as not being segment routing capable.
>>
>> Is this sentence intended to imply that if a router does not advertise
>> the SR-Algorithm TLV including algorithm X, then any prefix-SIDs for
>> algorithm X advertised by that router will be ignored by other routers?
>
> in OSPF we do not have the SR capability TLV. We use SR-Algorithm TLV
> for that purpose. So if a router does not advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV
> for algorithm X, other routers should not send any SR traffic using SIDs
> that were advertised for algorithm X.
>
> If the router does not advertise any SR Algorithm TLV, then the node is
> not SR capable and no SR traffic should be forwarded to such a node.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>
>>
>> If this is the intention, then it would be better to state is more explicitly.
>>
>> If not, then the intended meaning should be clarified.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 3:30 AM
>> To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> following text has been added in the latest revision of the OSPFv2 SR
>> draft, section 3.1.
>>
>> "If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by node, such node is
>> considered as not being segment routing capable."
>>
>> Please let us know if there are any concerns regarding this addition.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> .
>>
>
> .
>