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

"Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com> Tue, 22 September 2015 11:10 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A6EC1A1BDD for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id konfao3FJbrC for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B66A11A1BB9 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CBO96298; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:10:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:10:30 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.203]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:10:26 +0800
From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <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>, "draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05.all@ietf.org" <draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05
Thread-Index: AQHQ9SbrpaNM3Eujo0OfqbM+4WfySp5IY8lA
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:10:25 +0000
Message-ID: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF06C05F273@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <D226AE08.304BB%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D226AE08.304BB%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.212.150]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF06C05F273nkgeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/1kqZl8nhcp2VHfq0JC7xCv7o7SM>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:10:40 -0000

Hi Acee,

                It was my mistake referring old draft, current draft are consistent.  Both OSPF extension and SR Architecture draft use L-Flag.
                Apart from this other comments are valid I support , yet to hear from authors.

Thanks & Regards
Anil S N

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


From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
Sent: 22 September 2015 16:38
To: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Peter Psenak (ppsenak); Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil); hannes@juniper.net; rob.shakir@bt.com; wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com; Jeff Tantsura; draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05.all@ietf.org
Cc: OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05

Hi Anil,
Since the setting of the flag being set indicates that the SID is local, L-Flag seems like a more appropriate moniker for this OSPF protocol flag.  Calling it the G flag will only result in confusion.
Thanks,
Acee

From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com<mailto:anil.sn@huawei.com>>
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 2:43 AM
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com<mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com>>, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <cfilsfil@cisco.com<mailto:cfilsfil@cisco.com>>, "hannes@juniper.net<mailto:hannes@juniper.net>" <hannes@juniper.net<mailto:hannes@juniper.net>>, "rob.shakir@bt.com<mailto:rob.shakir@bt.com>" <rob.shakir@bt.com<mailto:rob.shakir@bt.com>>, Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>>, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com<mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>>, "draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05.all@ietf.org>" <draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05.all@ietf.org>>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05

Hi Authors,

In Section : 24.2.  Prefix SID Sub-TLV, L-Flag represent IGP segment is local or global (Suggest to change to G so that it will be consistent with Segment Routing Architecture draft) similar to that can we have A-Flag to indicate Anycast SID.

The L-Flag: Local/Global Flag.  If set, then the value/index
         carried by the PrefixSID has local significance.  If not set,
         then the value/index carried by this subTLV has global
         significance.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00#page-17
3.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00#section-3.2>.2>.  IGP Segment Terminology
3.2.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00#section-3.2.1>.1>.  IGP Segment, IGP SID
   The terms "IGP Segment" and "IGP SID" are the generic names for a
   segment attached to a piece of information advertised by a link-state
   IGP, e.g. an IGP prefix or an IGP adjacency.

   The IGP signaling extension to advertise an IGP segment includes the
   G-Flag indicating whether the IGP segment is global or local.
                                       IGP-SID
                                       +--+--+
                                      /   |   \
                             Prefix-SID   x   Adj-SID
                             +----+---+
                            /     |    \
                      Node-SID    y   Anycast-SID

                       Figure 7: IGP SID Terminology

   The IGP Segment terminology is introduced to ease the documentation
   of SR use-cases and hence does not propose a name for any possible
   variation of IGP segment supported by the architecture.  For example,
   y in Figure 7 could represent a local IGP segment attached to an IGP
   Prefix.  This variation, while supported by the SR architecture is
   not seen in the SR use-cases and hence does not receive a specific
   name.


Thanks & Regards
Anil S N

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


From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
Sent: 21 September 2015 20:00
To: 'Peter Psenak'; 'sprevidi@cisco.com<mailto:'sprevidi@cisco.com>'; 'cfilsfil@cisco.com<mailto:'cfilsfil@cisco.com>'; 'hannes@juniper.net<mailto:'hannes@juniper.net>'; 'rob.shakir@bt.com<mailto:'rob.shakir@bt.com>'; 'wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:'wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>'; Jeff Tantsura
Cc: OSPF WG List
Subject: draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05

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 :

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05

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