[OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Thu, 18 May 2017 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.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 DB3DD12EA95 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 02:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ZthhMkUFL6LP for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 02:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76F98129666 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 02:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by opfedar22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E9D0B607E3; Thu, 18 May 2017 11:02:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.10]) by opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id BC11C180081; Thu, 18 May 2017 11:02:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06]) by OPEXCLILM5C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::4bd:9b2b:3651:6fba%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Thu, 18 May 2017 11:02:08 +0200
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Thread-Index: AdLPtQbVeMNEOVcPQFiGcDi2Vv4rig==
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 09:02:07 +0000
Message-ID: <31629_1495098128_591D6310_31629_2947_2_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31D1BC20@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31D1BC20OPEXCLILM21corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/OTa5ixofXY5DCH8ZyAo6cqui4Ag>
Subject: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-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: Thu, 18 May 2017 09:08:08 -0000

Hi Chao,

Thanks for the review and comments.
As the comment is related to an OSPF WG document, I'm forwarding your comment on the OSPF WG, where it will be better tracked.

Regards,
Bruno


From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chao Fu
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:45 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] One question on E-flag of ABR/ASBR in OSPF SR extension

Hi,

Should we clarify how to set E-flag for ABR/ASBR in OSPF SR extension?

In https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-14.txt, the draft describes how to set NP-flag on ABR and ASBR (Section 5 [Page 14]):

   The NP-Flag (No-PHP) MUST be set for Prefix-SIDs allocated to inter-
   area prefixes that are originated by the ABR based on intra-area or
   inter-area reachability between areas.  When the inter-area prefix is
   generated based on a prefix which is directly attached to the ABR,
   the NP-Flag SHOULD NOT be set.

   The NP-Flag (No-PHP) MUST be be set for Prefix-SIDs allocated to
   redistributed prefixes, unless the redistributed prefix is directly
   attached to the ASBR, in which case the NP-flag SHOULD NOT be set.

However, the E-flag (Explicit-Null Flag) is not described. Should we clarify it also? I think E-flag SHOULD NOT be set if the prefix is not directly attached to the ABR or ASBR, and if necessary, it SHOULD be set if the prefix is directly attached to the ABR or ASBR.

Regards,
Chao Fu

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.