Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 02 October 2017 20:16 UTC
Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 3E9CA134877
for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001,
USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
header.d=cisco.com
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 sdeILnFoyDEd for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 513D8134873
for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4118; q=dns/txt; s=iport;
t=1506975387; x=1508184987;
h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references:
in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version;
bh=S6F4ivRyPl/U6PfxVUYGcOb1p2YsFfz7jW11tCQJeTc=;
b=CGrwA8KIsLMY/8JWuIcfxYODzuchagO9zttOnPe9n40OVqUJa40TaT1B
WEOxG+MgN2O96roAnmoS/w7ZQMnyv9r/dwUt/GBiygfG0lRvZj8WPGM4Q
HfmppVSeNu/Q2/p3mlBwI7gVP9KPVmPZIGgd1OaVkUaPQBXsK69JLrtvv Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DqAQAPntJZ/51dJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?=
=?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg11kbicHg3KaA4F2iEOPHANcChgLhRgCGoQnQxQBAgEBAQEBAQF?=
=?us-ascii?q?rKIUYAQEBAQMBASEROgsMBAIBCBEDAQEBAwIjAwICAh8GCxQBCAgCBA4FCIoQA?=
=?us-ascii?q?xUQpTOCJ4dCDYNkAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBDoIfggKBUYFpgym?=
=?us-ascii?q?CXoI9D4JtgmEFkUCPNjwCj2qEcJMSjHCINwIRGQGBOAE2IU8/eBVJhRocgWd2i?=
=?us-ascii?q?DSBEAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,470,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="302703785"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157])
by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
02 Oct 2017 20:16:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (xch-aln-015.cisco.com [173.36.7.25])
by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v92KGQ0b000525
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL);
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:16:26 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com
(173.36.7.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 2 Oct
2017 15:16:25 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com
([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000;
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:16:25 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Goethals, Dirk (Nokia -
BE/Antwerp)" <dirk.goethals@nokia.com>
CC: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AQHTO60ryqq8gPAgzUW33ifgYlff26LQ5d+AgAAXkgA=
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 20:16:25 +0000
Message-ID: <82440f0f8273400298cb3ff78b901108@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <00091bae-e9ac-ed07-d7f9-ac18c45d565f@nokia.com>
<59D286DA.5080205@cisco.com> <D5F7FF31.CA93E%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5F7FF31.CA93E%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.49.158]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/HoLge3CohA3hFPx5zPmFq_UNRlI>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions
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: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 20:16:29 -0000
Acee -
OSPF draft currently says:
"The G-Flag: Group Flag. When set, the G-Flag indicates that
the Adj-SID refers to a group of adjacencies (and therefore MAY
be assigned to other adjacencies as well)."
IS-IS draft currently says:
"S-Flag. Set flag. When set, the S-Flag indicates that the
Adj-SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore MAY be
assigned to other adjacencies as well)."
I do not see the terms "link-group" or "link-set" in either draft and I don’t see how they would apply to "adjacencies".
So exactly what is the issue and what is the proposed change?
If the concern is about the name "G-flag" vs "S-flag" - I find this much ado about very little. (Sorry...)
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:46 AM
> To: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <dirk.goethals@nokia.com>
> Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions
>
> Hi Dirk,
>
> I agree we should use the same term but we have finished WG last call and
> AD review for the OSPFv2 Segment Routing extensions. Additionally,
> everyone is familiar with the term link-group. A link-set would be new
> terminology. Let’s fix the IS-IS draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> >
> >
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions
> >Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:26:45 -0700
> >Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>
> >Resent-To: <ppsenak@cisco.com>om>, <stefano@previdi.net>et>,
> ><cfilsfil@cisco.com>o.com>, <hannes@rtbrick.com>om>, <robjs@google.com>om>,
> ><wim.henderickx@nokia.com>a.com>, <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> >Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:26:47 +0200
> >From: Dirk Goethals <dirk.goethals@nokia.com>
> >To: <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>rg>,
> ><draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>f.org>,
> >"draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org"
> ><draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi authors,
> >
> >OSPF's G-flag and ISIS's S-flag are both representing adjacency sets,
> >see snip below, can we align these definitions and simply call it
> >S-Flag in both IGPs.
> >
> >Thx,
> >Dirk
> >
> >OSPFv2 and OSPFv3:
> >
> > The G-Flag. Group Flag. When set, the G-Flag indicates that
> > the Adj-SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore MAY
> > be assigned to other adjacencies as well).
> >
> >
> >
> >ISIS:
> >
> > S-Flag. Set flag. When set, the S-Flag indicates that the
> > Adj-SID refers to a set of adjacencies (and therefore MAY be
> > assigned to other adjacencies as well).
> >
> >.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing… Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)