[OSPF] [ospf-sr] regarding Algorithm TLV and other TLVs in RI LSA

Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com> Fri, 28 April 2017 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796D612422F; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gxvjUQ9zGB31; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5C5129BF6; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DLX25771; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:12:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:12:44 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([]) by BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:42:37 +0530
From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
CC: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ospf-sr] regarding Algorithm TLV and other TLVs in RI LSA
Thread-Index: AdK/7qSvBUbTulMtTgmCwKa4thp/dA==
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:12:36 +0000
Message-ID: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885089AE6B@blreml501-mbb>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885089AE6Bblreml501mbb_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.5902EB6F.0101, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 740cfd0a928d85860d3fc0a044b801f7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/GG8oQUe1xlx-ZGbRYCUsfa5-rLw>
Subject: [OSPF] [ospf-sr] regarding Algorithm TLV and other TLVs in RI LSA
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:15:36 -0000

Dear Authors,

1.      As per section 3.1 SR- Algorithm TLV ,

       "If the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV appears in multiple Router Information LSAs

          that have different flooding scopes, the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV in the Router Information LSA with

          the lowest flooding scope SHOULD be used."

      "The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined opaque flooding
       scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)).  For the purpose of
       SR-Algorithm TLV advertisement, area scope flooding is required."

      As per first  statement, we should use lowest scope (Ex: if the algorithm TLV is received in AS ,Area and link, then link SR algorithm is preferred)
       But second statement indicates we use area scope for algorithm TLV. These two statements may cause little confusion while implementation.
      As per my understanding,  Area scope will be preferred since Node visibility is at area scope.

2.      Even "SR Local Block Sub-TLV SRMS and Preference Sub-TLV" are top level TLVs in RI LSA like SR-Algorithm TLV and "SID/Label Range TLV", may be it is better to replace "Sub TLV" with TLV.

Thanks and Regards,