[OSPF] Working Group Last Call for OSPFv2 Segment Routing - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-17

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Since an unimplemented section was removed and there were also a number of
clarifications, I’d like to request a WG last call on the modified draft.
It will end on July 1st, 2017 at 12:00 AM GMT. For your convenience, here
are the relevant links.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-17
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-exten
sions-17

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extension
s-17

Thanks,
Acee 




On 6/23/17, 6:14 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Alia,
>
>thanks for comments, please see inline:
>
>
>On 31/05/17 04:05 , Alia Atlas wrote:
>> As is customary, I have done my AD review
>> of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16 once publication has
>> been requested.  First, I would like to thank the editors & many
>> authors, Peter, Stefano, Clarence, Hannes, Rob, Wim & Jeff, for the work
>> that they have put in so far and the remaining work that is greatly
>>needed.
>>
>> While there are a great many issues to be handled, they fall primarily
>> into three categories.  The first is simply not going through and
>> tightening up the details; for example, stating that the length of a TLV
>> is variable provides no meaning.  The second is that the technical
>> documents from SPRING that this draft depends on do not adequately
>> describe the use of the advertised information (SID/Label Binding TLV)
>> or some of the concepts (e.g. SR Mapping Server).  The third is a more
>> common set of handling error cases and adding clarity to the intended
>> behavior.  I do not see issues with the encodings but I do see fragility
>> with the unstated assumptions and behaviors.  The draft describes
>> encodings, but very little of the handling, behaviors, or meaning - and
>> the references do not provide adequate detail.
>>
>> I have spent all day (and evening) doing this review and I am quite
>> disappointed and concerned about the document.  I would strongly
>> recommend having sharing the next WGLC with the SPRING working group;
>> perhaps more eyes will help with the discrepancies.
>>
>> I have not yet decided what to do about the "early" IANA allocation -
>> which has now existed for this draft for 3 years.  I do know that there
>> are implementations,
>> but I am currently seeing the failure of this work to successfully
>> complete as an example of an issue with providing early allocations.
>>
>> MAJOR ISSUES:
>>
>> 1) This draft has 7 authors.  The limit for authors & editors is 5, as
>> is clearly stated in RFC 7322 Sec 4.1.1 and has been the case for well
>> over a decade, unless there are extraordinary circumstances.  Is there a
>> reason to not simply list the active editor and move the others to
>> contributors?  One of the authors is already listed there.  I regret
>> that failure to deal earlier with this long-standing IETF policy will be
>> delaying progressing the draft.
>
>I don't know how to resolve this. I can not tell any of the coauthors
>that I'm going to drop him from the list after his contribution to this
>for several years. Two of us are marked as editors already.
>
>
>>
>> 2) This expired individual
>> draft(draft-minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection-03) is listed as
>> Informative - but IS ACTUALLY NORMATIVE since it DEFINES the
>> "M-bit - When the bit is set, the binding represents a mirroring context
>> as defined in [I-D.minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection]."
>>   Unfortunately, when I look there for the definition of a mirroring
>> context, it doesn't exists.
>
>Section 6 was removed.
>
>
>>
>> 3) The following Informative references expired several years ago and -
>> being individual drafts - do not appear to convey the SPRING or TEAS WG
>> consensus.
>>     a)  draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-03 was
>> replaced with draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-07 and there
>> are considerable differences.
>
>fixed
>
>>     b) It is unclear what happened
>> to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01, but I do not see
>> any successor - or reason for this individual draft to explain the
>> OSPFv2 extensions more than work from the SPRING WG.
>
>I replaced it with RFC7855.
>
>>
>> 4) Sec 3.3: Is it ok to advertise an SRLB TLV without advertising the
>> SR-Algorithm TLV?  What is the expected behavior and assumptions by the
>> receiver?
>
>These are independent TLVs. Both are optional and there is no dependency
>between them.
>
>>
>> 5) Sec 3.4:  What happens if an SRMS Preference TLV is advertised
>> without an SR-Algorithm TLV in the same scope?
>
>SRMS Preference TLV is independent of the SR-Algorithm TLV.
>
>The fact that SRMS provides mapping between addresses and SIDs, does not
>require SRMS to support SR at all. SRMS functionality can be run on a
>node that is never in the data path and as such does not need to support
>SR.
>
>
>> I see that it says "For
>> the purpose of the SRMS Preference Sub-TLV advertisement, AS scope
>> flooding is required." but also provides for area scope flooding.  Some
>> words clarifying the expected behavior would be useful.
>
>   "For the purpose of the SRMS
>    Preference Sub-TLV advertisement, AS scope flooding is required."
>
>above refers to a generic case, where the SRMS can be located anywhere
>in the network, which means it can be in a different area.
>
>
>    "If
>    the SRMS advertisements from the SRMS server are only used inside the
>    area to which the SRMS server is attached, area scope flooding may be
>    used."
>
>Above says that if the usage of the SRMS advertisements is bound to an
>area, area flooding is sufficient.
>
>I added some more text to the first part above to make it clear that the
>is referring to the multi-area case.
>
>
>>
>> 6) Sec 5: "In such case, MPLS EXP bits of the Prefix-SID are not
>> preserved for
>> the final destination (the Prefix-SID being removed)."   I am quite
>> startled to see an assumption that MPLS Pipe mode is being forced as
>> part of specifying PHP mode!  This will also break any ECN or 3-color
>> marking that has affected the MPLS EXP bits.  I would like to see and
>> understand a clear justification for why short-pipe mode is being
>> required instead of Uniform (or up to implementation/configuration.).
>> Basically, this sentence means that transport considerations are a
>> necessary section - which is completely inappropriate in an IGP draft.
>
>sentence has been removed.
>
>>
>> 7) Sec 6: This section defines the SID/Label Binding sub-TLV - which
>> appears to be a way to advertise an explicit path - and has a SID/Label
>> by which the path can be entered.   How and what state is set up by the
>> sending router to create the indicated segment is completely unclear.
>> I have hunted
>> through draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing,
>>draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls,
>> and draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop, RFC7855,
>> and draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions.   As far as I can tell,
>> NONE of them clearly describe the details of where and why this
>> advertising is needed.  Obviously, this mechanism does allow the
>> potential shortening of the MPLS label stack at the cost of advertising
>> multi-hop explicit path segments across the entire area or AS.  There
>> MUST be a normative description of what the sending router will do when
>> a packet is received with the specified label.
>
>section 6 has been removed.
>
>>
>> 8) Sec 4: "The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described in
>> [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]"  Where precisely is
>> an SRMS and its behavior/role actually defined?
>>   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-07 claims:"SR to LDP
>> interworking requires a SRMS as defined in
>> [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]." but that wouldn't be
>> appropriate, of course, and it isn't there either!
>>   draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-04 talks about SRMS, but doesn't
>> define it.   draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11 mentions in Sec 3.5.1
>> that "A Remote-Binding SID S advertised by the mapping server M" and
>> refers to the ldp-interop draft for further details - but obviously not
>> about an SRMS.
>
>
>A new text has been added to filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop
>to explain the SRMS better.
>
>>
>> Minor Issues:
>>
>> 1) In Sec 3.1, it says: "The SR-Algorithm TLV is optional. It MUST 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
>
>I removed the above sentence, it is not required. Following sentence in
>the draft clearly says:
>
>"If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by the node, such node is
>considered as not being segment routing capable."
>
>> also be advertised."  Please provide a pointer in the text to the
>> behavior for a receiving router if one or both of these are violated?
>> For the requirement to advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV, please clarify
>> that this is in the same RI LSA as the SID/Label Range TLV was
>> advertised & with the same scope.  What does it mean, in terms of the
>> receiving router, to determine that the sending router supports SR or
>> not - given the possibility of receiving other SR-related TLVS in an RI
>> LSA without getting an SR-Algorithm TLV?
>
>please see above.
>
>>
>> 2) Sec 3.1: The SR-Algorithm TLV simply defines "Length: Variable".
>> Given that advertising Algorithm 0 is required, I'm fairly sure that the
>> Length has to be a minimum of 1 - and, to prevent overrun & weird
>> issues, let's have a reasonable maximum (for instance, 24) too.  It
>> wouldn't hurt to remind readers that the length is just that of the
>> value field - though experienced OSPF implementers will know that.
>
>I added "dependent on number of Algorithms advertised".
>
>But I'm not sure why would we want to limit ourselves to 24 or any
>specific length.
>
>>
>> 3) Sec 3.1 & Sec 3.2 & Sec 3.3: "For the purpose of SR-Algorithm TLV
>> advertisement, area scope flooding is required." and "For the purpose of
>> SID/Label Range TLV advertisement, area scope flooding is required."
>>   and "For the purpose of SR Local Block Sub-TLV TLV advertisement, area
>> scope flooding is required." Please capitalize REQUIRED as per RFC
>> 2119.  Otherwise, please explain behavior when area scope isn't used.
>
>I change to REQUIRED.
>
>I'm not sure why do we need to explain what happens if other scope is
>used, when we say what is REQUIRED. If someone uses link scope,
>information would not be propagated where it needs to be present. If
>someone uses AS scope the information would go to places where it is not
>needed. Do we need to say that explicitly in the draft? We used teh same
>wording in other RFCs, without describing what happens if the REQUIRED
>is not followed.
>
>
>>
>> 4) Sec 3.2:  The SID/Label Range TLV doesn't indicate that include a
>> SID/Label sub-TLV is required - but I don't understand how it could be
>> interpreted otherwise; nor does it indicate what to do if there are
>> multiple SID/Label sub-TLVs included in a single SID/Label Range TLV.
>
>added text that the SID/Label sub-TLV MUST be included
>
>I also added some text about handling of multiple SID/Label TLVs.
>
>
>
>> Again "Length" is just defined as variable.  In this case, it clearly
>> can't be less than 11 (probably 12, assuming padding to the 32-bit
>> boundary).   It would be useful to have an upper-bound on length, but at
>> least here I can see the argument that meaningful flexibility is
>> provided for.
>
>I added "dependent on sub-TLVs.", which we used in rfc7684
>
>>
>> 5) SID index is used without introduction in Sec 3.2.  It isn't defined
>> in the terminology of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11 and the other
>> uses of it in this document aren't enough to clearly define it.  Please
>> add at least a description of its meaning before use - in a terminology
>> section, if necessary.
>
>Added some text at the beginning of section 3.2.
>
>>
>> 6) Sec 3.2: "The originating router advertises the following ranges:
>>           Range 1: [100, 199]
>>           Range 2: [1000, 1099]
>>           Range 3: [500, 599]"
>> Please turn this into the information actually advertised - i.e.
>>     Range 1: Range Size: 100   SID/Label sub-TLV: 100  => meaning [100,
>>199]
>> etc.
>
>fixed.
>
>
>>
>> 7) 3.2. SID/Label Range TLV:  Please specify that the sender MUST NOT
>> advertise overlapping ranges & how to handle the case when it does.
>> This is required by draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution.
>
>done.
>
>>
>> 8) Sec 3.3  SR Local Block (SRLB) Sub-TLV: The document doesn't specify
>> that the SR Local Block TLV MUST include a SID/Label sub-TLV nor
>> indicate what to do if multiple are included.
>
>added text that the SID/Label sub-TLV MUST be included
>
>I also added some text about multiple SID/Label TLVs being present.
>
>> The Length, again, isn't
>> specified at all and clearly has at least a minimum.
>
>I added "dependent on sub-TLVs.", which we used in rfc7684
>
>
>> I don't see a
>> reference to an SR Local Block or the need to advertise it
>> in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11; perhaps I missed where the
>> requirement and usage are defined?
>
>The need for advertisement is described in latest version of
>draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls.
>
>I also modified the text in OSPF draft to better describe the need for
>advertisemement.
>
>
>>
>> 9) Sec 3.3: "Each time a SID from the SRLB is allocated, it SHOULD also
>>be
>>     reported to all components..."  Presumably, this is subjected to the
>> normal OSPF dampening - it'd be nice to note that somewhere - since
>> rapid sequential allocation may not provide the reporting speed
>>anticipated.
>
>
>SRLB is something that is either configured or eventually tight to a
>platform. In neither case, this is not expected to change frequently.
>
>>
>> 10) Sec 4: "AF: Address family for the prefix. Currently, the only
>>supported
>>        value is 0 for IPv4 unicast.  The inclusion of address family in
>>        this TLV allows for future extension."  Could you please clarify
>> if this is to reuse the same TLV for OSPFv3 so IPv6 can be supported,
>> are you thinking of extending OSPFv2 for IPv6 prefixes for some cases or
>> something else?
>> I think the current phrasing is likely to raise
>> questions.
>
>This mirrors what we have done for OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV in RFC768.
>We defined these top level containers in a way that they are extendible
>for other AFs.
>
>
>> Similarly, please define "Prefix length: Length of the
>> prefix" clearly.
>
>changed to "Length of prefix in bits." to mirror RFC768.
>
>> I really don't understand what the benefit of having a
>> TLV that pretends to support multiple AFs but can't is versus the
>> clarity of specifying the prefix lengths.
>
>I fixed the Address Prefix encoding text to mirror RFC7684.
>
>>
>> 11) Sec 4:  Again "Length: Variable" - It should have a minimum and
>> preferable describe a function for how it is computed.  A maximum is
>> probably unlikely  with sub-TLVs.
>
>I added "dependent on sub-TLVs.", which we used in rfc7684
>
>
>>
>> 12) Sec 4: OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV:  Does this TLV has any
>> meaning or action associated with it without including sub-TLVs?
>
>no.
>
>> Are
>> there mandatory sub-TLVs?  What is a receiving router to do with it?
>
>no. If it's empty, router just stores it in LSDB and do not use it for
>anything.
>
>>
>> 13) Sec 5: "If multiple Prefix-SIDs are advertised for the same prefix,
>>the
>>    receiving router MUST use the first encoded SID and MAY use
>>    subsequent SIDs."  What does this even mean?  A receiving router when
>> making the decision to use a subsequent SID is making a decision to not
>> use the first encoded SID; it's not like the router is going to stick
>> both SID/Labels onto the stack.   Please describe this in meaningful
>> normative terms.
>
>replaced that text with a new one.
>
>>
>> 14) Sec 5:" When calculating the outgoing label for the prefix, the
>> router MUST
>>     take into account the E and P flags advertised by the next-hop
>>router
>>     if that router advertised the SID for the prefix.  This MUST be done
>>     regardless of whether the next-hop router contributes to the best
>>     path to the prefix."  First, I assume this is "NP flag" because
>> there is no P flag.
>
>corrected
>
>>     Second - please clarify to "take into account, as described below,
>> the E and NP flags...".
>
>done
>
>
>
> >Third, the M flag must also be taken into
>> account - given the text later in the section.
>
>corrected
>
>>
>> 15) Sec 5: "When a Prefix-SID is advertised in an Extended Prefix Range
>> TLV, then the value advertised in the Prefix SID Sub-TLV is interpreted
>>as a
>>     starting SID value."   This appears to contradict "SID/Index/Label:
>> According to the V and L flags, it contains either:
>>
>>           A 32-bit index defining the offset in the SID/Label space
>>           advertised by this router.
>>
>>           A 24-bit label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for
>>           encoding the label value."
>
>I added changed the text to:
>
>"Prefix SID Sub-TLV is interpreted as a starting SID/Label value", which
>I believe should be sufficient.
>
>>    I assume that what is meant by the first quote is "...is interpreted,
>> if the V flag is clear, as a starting SID value, and if the V flag is
>> set, as a starting Label value."
>> Otherwise, it looks like the
>> Prefix-SID sub-TLV couldn't be included in the Extended Prefix Range TLV
>> if a label value would be used.
>> It would be helpful for Example 2 to show the label case.
>>
>> 16) Sec 6.1: "aggregate IGP or TE path cost."  Given that this is an
>> OSPF draft, it'd be helpful to indicate whether there are challenges
>> with non-comparable OSPF metrics (I'm thinking about AS-external type 2
>> costs) or if the path will never include such costs.
>
>section 6 was removed
>
>>
>> 17) Sec 6.2: "a domain and hence need to be disambiguated using a
>> domain-unique Router-ID."  Given that the Prefix-SIDs and sub-TLVs can
>> be distributed between areas and even redistributed between protocols,
>> please clearly define what is meant by a "domain" or point to the
>> appropriate definition.
>
>section 6 was removed
>
>
>>
>> 18) Sec 4, 5, 6:  Is it possible to have an OSPF Extended Prefix Range
>> TLV that includes both a Prefix SID Sub-TLV and a SID/Label Binding
>> Sub-TLV?   What does that mean?
>
>SID/Label Binding TLV was removed.
>
>>
>> What does it mean if there are multiple prefixes described in the OSPF
>> Extended Prefix Range TLV that includes a SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV?
>> Does the SID/Label sub-sub-TLV indicate a single SID Index or Label that
>> is used for the single path to all those prefixes?  Is it the start of a
>> list of SID Indices or Labels?
>> I see that the SID/Label Binding sub-TLV can be in both the OSPF
>> Extended Prefx Range TLV as well as the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV - but
>> there is no text on differences in interpretation.
>
>SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV was removed
>
>
>>
>> 19) Sec 7.1 & 7.2: Another  couple "Length: Variable."  Please actually
>> specify the value. I think that, given the padding to 32-bit alignment,
>> there is a single correct value.
>
>fixed.
>
>>
>> 20) Sec 7.1 and 7.2: Given that the Flag bits have exactly the same
>> meaning - it'd be clearer to have them defined once.
>
>done
>
>>
>> 21) Sec 8.1: "An SR Mapping Server MUST use the OSPF Extended Prefix
>> Range TLV when advertising SIDs for prefixes.  Prefixes of different
>> route-types can be combined in a single OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV
>> advertised by an SR Mapping Server."    So - I can't find a normative
>> definition of an SRMS to determine why it is always necessary to use an
>> OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV instead of an OSPF Extended Prefix TLV.
>
>for simplicity we only want to use OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV when
>advertising SRMS mapping entries. It's the encoding we enforced for SRMS
>advertisement.
>
>> I don't see how advertising prefixes from different route-types can work
>> unless the prefixes are adjacent, which seems likely to be uncommon.
>> Perhaps what is meant is "Because the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV
>> doesn't include a Route-Type field, as in the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV,
>> it is possible to include adjacent prefixes from different Route-Types
>> in the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV."
>
>yes, that is correct. I added the above text to the draft.
>
>>
>> 22) Sec 8.1: "If multiple routers advertise a Prefix-SID for the same
>> prefix, then
>> the Prefix-SID MUST be the same.  This is required in order to allow
>> traffic load-balancing when multiple equal cost paths to the destination
>> exist in the OSPFv2 routing domain."  How is this enforced?  What are
>> the consequences of it not being conformed to?  This is NOT a protocol
>> implementation requirement.  This should really be called out in a
>> Manageability Considerations with warnings.
>
>I removed the above text.
>
>>
>> 23) Sec 8.2:"If no Prefix-SID was advertised for the prefix in the
>> source area
>>        by the router that contributes to the best path to the prefix,
>>the
>>        originating ABR will use the Prefix-SID advertised by any other
>>        router when propagating the Prefix-SID for the prefix to other
>>        areas."  I believe that this depends on the assumption that if a
>> Prefix-SID is advertised by any router, the Prefix-SID will be the
>> same.  Please be explicit in this assumption, since the requirement on
>> the network operator should be clear as well as the consequences of not
>> conforming.
>
>above text says that the prefix SID may come from different router then
>the one which is contributing to the best path, if the router that
>contributes to the best path is not advertising the SID. No assumption
>about multiple SIDs being the same is made.
>
>>
>> 24) Sec 10:  The Implementation Status section should indicate that it
>> is to be removed before publication as an RFC.   Also, the complete
>> implementation part seems a bit dated - given the draft's technical
>> changes in the last 2 years.
>
>I added a sentence about this section being removed before publication.
>
>>
>>
>> NITS:
>>
>> 1) Sec 2.1: s/"SID/Label TLV"/"SID/Label sub-TLV"
>
>fixed all of them
>>
>> 2) Sec 3.2:"Initially, the only supported Sub-TLV is the SID/Label TLV
>> as defined
>>     in Section 2.1.  The SID/Label advertised in the SID/Label TLV
>>     represents the first SID/Label in the advertised range."
>>     replace SID/Label TLV with SID/Label sub-TLV.
>
>done.
>
>>
>> 3) Sec 3.3 & Sec 3.4: " The SR Local Block (SRLB) Sub-TLV is a top-level
>> TLV of the Router Information Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770])."
>> Please correct the descriptions (many) to SR Local Block (SRLB) Sub-TLV
>> to SR Local Block SRLB TLV.   The same issue exists for "SRMS Preference
>> Sub-TLV".
>
>I updated the text to use the expanded name first time and use
>abbreviated name in other places.
>
>thanks,
>Peter
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf