Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions: If you please provide your inputs on the issue.

[Mahendra Singh Negi <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors,

Amidst implementing conflict resolution for OSPF SR ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05) we came across this issue.


Topology:
[cid:image001.png@01D3AC8E.01F60430]

Issue:



1.       Prefix conflict occurs at RT1 and RT2.

2.       Both RT1 and RT2 resolve the conflict and download corresponding Label for SID:1 (SID:1 wins conflict resolution).

3.       Both RT1 and RT2 advertise inter-area Extended Prefix Opaque LSA for prefix 10.10.10.10 in area a1 with SID:1.

Reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-24#section-7.2

&

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-24#section-5

  (If an OSPF router advertises multiple Prefix-SIDs for the same prefix, topology and algorithm, all of them MUST be ignored.)



4.       Now at RT1, user changes the  SID configuration value to 4, and still SID 1 wins the conflict resolution as in area a1 RT2 has not flushed or updated SID:1, and SID:1 is forever in LSDB.

How to fix the issue?

a)      think ABRs should advertise all the SIDs to leaking areas and MUST condition mentioned highlighted in yellow above be relaxed (i.e. update inter-area segment routing section accordingly) and let each node run conflict-resolution.

b)       On SID configuration change, RT1 Flushes the SID:1 and waits for SID:1 flushing out from the LSDB and then originates with new SID:4.(How long to wait is decided locally).


I prefer (a), if you please provide your opinion on this. We are under development, highly appreciate prompt  responses.



Regards,
Mahendra