Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com> Thu, 29 September 2016 16:12 UTC
Return-Path: <acee.lindem@gmail.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 B0BEA12B04F for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 T2r5q2wVQ0Wm for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0199812B143 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j129so73855736qkd.1 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jGIGlHeVpOtSUf3to1AvdMZPzdhSCL7IyqSFj+GR88E=; b=J0OTc/s4b6gbpTCGkGxRAU1GxVoINjJQNFDZTfQ/hCI+l8O3EP72fHgH/m9W26Jfa5 mxdZdfazmOE1G9kipgyYWSUtzVY0QC0TbXg84QryMYL2Gj2yX/YYM8zKnBBhg2o9iDbK vyW8/dONCjad1qH/cU0ehBbp3hzBhMNtE+e/SnQeD9Hikno75M8c/ty7g/RJRKpZVUX1 2NNs9FP0GXRUXVtoJ1Od8n8DtgdSIF/hKiklaLMUiaAwC9DS6ZWPo88mJbbuQ7moPkdH 4O0BAc2ncE6pYgpROFPihJS3q2nvmR8OL86DIc93ssSvZkpGy/Q/bTWbzJmH/V2mXNoK I3pg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jGIGlHeVpOtSUf3to1AvdMZPzdhSCL7IyqSFj+GR88E=; b=Fll7yucTZBCfXPRw8dOo4U8EZXb4yHunVE+AHDa+aR3qtbIblPUe/EB2ONZTqazVWK +tR//4N9teZxKV1JecRUvepsVYNp4lnw8MOUZFRYLUPQJcEPycqo8IaGfmCWW9jooDyQ 6xeSTCqLcUTIbkTgIVCxwW9doFBhnXLqS2E66d5p5kMF303FdBz7j21K8xiNR/9FmaHV H3l2hPpS9BfKHkD5ZOpM7mY+/K13kPUQh+f3kuFZnj7QAisMnVNKxeR4uNohdErHft1J GzebsgKwS/Ixtfuw3B2APoW6JCxp/Kt50JxEnutumcpuzdrbsWp3ex1qAYRvjay+SKNO uUVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmAXqrvufsZV5y5+DHQjLrGDay2j3l64dFnSVW8TXnpjKEHv58T+zKIsofyR9LrXA==
X-Received: by 10.55.4.137 with SMTP id 131mr2354158qke.292.1475165059126; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-acee-8814.cisco.com (nccm-cmcs-client.cisco.com. [173.38.117.70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n6sm7011668qkf.36.2016.09.29.09.04.18 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Acee Lindem <aceelindem@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR05MB2829B89DA0DD805EBEC48DDCA9CE0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:04:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <84A13F28-A726-41B6-BE1C-F2688E5A7B26@gmail.com>
References: <5791D96B.6080907@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB2829B34A5B8AB2F4489DC2AFA9060@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57B1AA09.3070008@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB28296BF24F47EB6889CEE186A9130@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57B32AF0.5060300@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB2829450CD2E99F6996A10A44A9160@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57BAAA6D.1070905@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB282945C376A970F2711059BCA9EA0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <57BEB015.9050407@cisco.com> <467e4ef70c574405937d7a560953403f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB28290D90F43317B160025245A9ED0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D412AF9E.8112C%acee@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB2829B89DA0DD805EBEC48DDCA9CE0@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/JpdmWQYpC6zfAuAHVvir1SeySmU>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft
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: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:12:55 -0000
Aren’t the text changes restricted to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing? Acee > On Sep 29, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> wrote: > > I would like to see actual textual updates in the form of new revisions for the clarifications that have been proposed for both draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions and draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing so that we know exactly what text we are agreeing on. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:50 AM > To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft > > Speaking as WG Co-Chair: > > Hi Chris, Les, Peter, > > So, is there anything preventing us from requesting publication of the > OSPFv2 Segment Routing draft? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On 8/25/16, 11:00 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Chris Bowers" > <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of cbowers@juniper.net> wrote: > >> Les and Peter, >> >> I have also been pursuing the approach you suggest. >> >> The following request to clarify draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 >> on this topic was sent on Aug. 3rd. >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spring/current/msg02273.html >> >> Hopefully, we can get closure on these clarifications soon. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:32 AM >> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>; Chris Bowers >> <cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org> >> Subject: RE: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >> >> Chris/Peter - >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak >>> (ppsenak) >>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:45 AM >>> To: Chris Bowers; OSPF List >>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> On 24/08/16 20:31 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>>> Peter, >>>> >>>> The text that you propose corresponds to part of the text that I >>>> proposed, >>> and it seems good to me. >>>> >>>> However, the last sentence of the text that I proposed in not >>> addressed. >>>> ------ >>>> If router B does not advertise the >>>> SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should not >>>> forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X >>>> advertised by some router D using a path that would require router >>>> B to forward traffic using algorithm X. >>>> ------ >>>> Is this an oversight? >>> >>> not that I disagree with the statement that you want to add. >>> >>> The question is whether that belongs to the IGP SR draft, or whether >>> that should be specified in a different draft. >>> >>> There is already some text regarding the forwarding for a SR >>> algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing section 3.2.1., which >>> may not be aligned with what you have in mind: >>> >>> "The ingress node of an SR domain validates that the path to a >>> prefix, >>> advertised with a given algorithm, includes nodes all supporting the >>> advertised algorithm. In other words, when computing paths for a >>> given algorithm, the transit nodes MUST compute the algorithm X on >>> the IGP topology, regardless of the support of the algorithm X by >>> the >>> nodes in that topology. As a consequence, if a node on the path >>> does >>> not support algorithm X, the IGP-Prefix segment will be interrupted >>> and will drop packet on that node. It's the responsibility of the >>> ingress node using a segment to check that all downstream nodes >>> support the algorithm of the segment." >>> >>> Maybe we should add/modify the text in >>> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing section 3.2.1, rather then adding >>> anything to the OSPF/ISIS SR drafts. >>> >> [Les:] I strongly agree with this approach. If one wants to understand >> how the MPLS dataplane works with SR then the following documents are >> relevant: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-05.txt >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-0 >> 4.t >> xt >> >> References to these documents can be included in the IGP drafts - but >> we should not try to repurpose the IGP drafts to cover material which >> is covered far more completely in the above drafts. >> >> If you feel there is something which needs to be added/revised to any >> of the above drafts to more accurately explain algorithm specific >> forwarding please make the comment in the context of one of those drafts. >> >> Les >> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:32 AM >>>> To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org> >>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> what about this to be added in the Section 3.1: >>>> >>>> >>>> "A router receiving a Prefix-SID (defined in section 5) from a >>>> remote node >>> and with an SR algorithm value that such remote node has not >>> advertised in the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV MUST ignore the Prefix-SID >>> sub-TLV." >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19/08/16 23:33 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>>>> Peter, >>>>> >>>>> Please share the updated text that you plan to use with the WG, >>>>> since this >>> is a reasonably significant clarification. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 10:02 AM >>>>> To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>>>> >>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>> >>>>> I'll update the draft along those lines. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 16/08/16 16:02 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>>>>> Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest changing the paragraph to read as below to make this >>> clearer. >>>>>> >>>>>> ===== >>>>>> The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional. It MAY 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 >>>>>> also be advertised. If a router C advertises a Prefix-SID >>>>>> sub-TLV for >>> algorithm X >>>>>> but does not advertise the SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV with >>>>>> algorithm X, >>> then >>>>>> a router receiving that advertisement MUST ignore the >>> Prefix-SID >>>>>> advertisement from router C. If router B does not >>>>>> advertise >>> the >>>>>> SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should >>> not >>>>>> forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X >>> advertised by >>>>>> some router D using a path that would require router B to >>>>>> forward >>> traffic using >>>>>> algorithm X. >>>>>> ===== >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:40 AM >>>>>> To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>>> >>>>>> sorry for the delay, I was on PTO during last two weeks. >>>>>> Please see inline: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/08/16 16:45 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Taking a looking at the whole paragraph into this sentence was >>>>>>> added, I am not sure how to interpret it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional. It MAY 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 >>>>>>> also be advertised. If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not >>> advertised by the >>>>>>> node, such node is considered as not being segment >>>>>>> routing >>> capable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this sentence intended to imply that if a router does not >>>>>>> advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV including algorithm X, then any >>>>>>> prefix-SIDs for algorithm X advertised by that router will be >>>>>>> ignored by >>> other routers? >>>>>> >>>>>> in OSPF we do not have the SR capability TLV. We use SR-Algorithm >>>>>> TLV for that purpose. So if a router does not advertise the >>>>>> SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, other routers should not send >>>>>> any SR traffic using SIDs that were advertised for algorithm X. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the router does not advertise any SR Algorithm TLV, then the >>>>>> node is not SR capable and no SR traffic should be forwarded to >>> such a node. >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks, >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If this is the intention, then it would be better to state is >>>>>>> more >>> explicitly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not, then the intended meaning should be clarified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter >>>>>>> Psenak >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 3:30 AM >>>>>>> To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org> >>>>>>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> following text has been added in the latest revision of the >>>>>>> OSPFv2 SR draft, section 3.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by node, such node is >>>>>>> considered as not being segment routing capable." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let us know if there are any concerns regarding this >>> addition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> OSPF@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Chris Bowers
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Chris Bowers
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Chris Bowers
- [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Chris Bowers
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Chris Bowers
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Chris Bowers
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Chris Bowers