IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing

Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 05:32 UTC

Return-Path: <veerendranatharv@huawei.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 17EA91294C4; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:32:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5psLfsu3an58; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:32:57 -0800 (PST)
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 4D921127058; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DHW64802; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:32:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:32:52 +0000
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:02:45 +0530
From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing
Thread-Index: AdKGlFksyjOSP5PBTr6bWApBsa9BeQExrejwAWBQvwAAKNEBcA==
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:32:44 +0000
Message-ID: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885087738B@blreml501-mbx>
References: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850873AA8@blreml501-mbx> <58B43F60.8080009@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <58B43F60.8080009@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.152.243]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0201.58B50B86.0153, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 4054f448fb91a32d43e3ad1153ec8558
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/6xqI3QfVChM7IIh7HqNAZ4ROq8g>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing
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, 28 Feb 2017 05:32:59 -0000

Dear Peter,

We used segment routing support flag (bit 6 or 7 in RI capability information) to notify the node support SR capability.
But there may be some legacy I/O boards which are not capable for SRH/MPLS processing, can be bound to OSPF process.

OSPFv3 extended LSAs can also be used to carry normal prefix information same as regular LSAs.

For MPLS, we have sub TLVs for SR prefix information, so that we can identify the prefixes not used for  segment routing.

But for IPv6, prefix information itself prefix SID, so mostly sub TLV information is not used to carry additional SR information.
So in this case, I feel, we may need a flag to identify the prefixes not supported segment routing or supporting segment routing.

Regards,
Veerendranath


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] 
Sent: 27 February 2017 20:32
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing

Veerendranath,

can you please elaborate on the use case? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking for.

thanks,
Peter

On 20/02/17 10:34 , Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem wrote:
> Dear Authors,
>
> Gentle remainder,
>
> We are planning to implement the "identification of IPv6 prefix for 
> segment routings  (SRH) by setting the flag in option field" as 
> described in below mail.
>
> Please provide your valuable opinion  whether it is ok as per 
> Extension draft.
>
> Regards,
>
> Veerendranath
>
> *From:* Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
> *Sent:* 14 February 2017 13:08
> *To:* 'draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org'
> <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org>
> *Cc:* ospf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 
> Segment Routing
>
> Dear Authors,
>
> While adverting prefixes for IPv6 Segment Routing (SRH support), the
> IPv6 prefixes  may not require to carry additional sub TLVs related to 
> SRH some times.
>
> So to identify prefixes are using for IPv6 Segment Routing, it may be 
> helpful we add one option bit in prefix options like 'N' bit added for 
> Node identification.
>
> Please provide your opinion for adding new bit for IPv6 segment routing
>   in prefix options.
>
>                          0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7
>
>                      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
>
>                      |  |  | N|DN| P| x|LA|NU|
>
>                      +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
>
> Regards,
>
> Veerendranath
>

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status