From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "internet-drafts@ietf.org"
 <internet-drafts@ietf.org>, "i-d-announce@ietf.org" <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
CC: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] I-D Action:
 draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSxL0CrhMu31COMEm/W0EtbryvJaHtEw0AgAAaSgCAAYgBkA==
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 06:49:57 +0000
Message-ID: <BN3PR05MB2706B162184FA435C48F3931D5ED0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <149389189879.4821.567420168746411343@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <BN3PR05MB2706DD1C3249BDE683DF62E3D5EC0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <5912BB0E.6070805@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5912BB0E.6070805@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 May 2017 06:49:57.2742 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2707
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/P7AsquxFu1TXJK8CySrFHNfr2lE>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action:
 draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt
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, 11 May 2017 06:50:09 -0000

Peter,

It is clearly specified that ABR originating prefixes from other areas shou=
ld have NP
Bit set.

"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 same behavior should apply to mapping server advertised advertisements =
as well.

" As the Mapping Server does not specify the originator of a prefix
>     advertisement, it is not possible to determine PHP behavior solely
>     based on the Mapping Server advertisement.  However, PHP behavior
>     SHOULD be done in following cases:
>
>        The Prefix is intra-area type and the downstream neighbor is the
>        originator of the prefix.
>
>        The Prefix is inter-area type and downstream neighbor is an ABR,
>        which is advertising prefix reachability and is also generating
>        the Extended Prefix TLV with the A-flag set for this prefix as
>        described in section 2.1 of [RFC7684]."


While the text above captures the case of directly attached prefixes it doe=
s not cover the
Case of re-distributed prefixes for mapping server advertisements.

Suggest to add below text.
       =20
        "The Prefix is inter-area type and downstream neighbor is an ABR,
        which is advertising prefix reachability and is also generating
        the Extended Prefix TLV with the A-flag re-set for this prefix as
        described in section 2.1 of [RFC7684] then PHP MUST not be done"
Rgds=20
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 12:33 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>; internet-drafts@ietf.org; i-d-an=
nounce@ietf.org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-=
13.txt

Hi Shraddha,

please see inline:

On 10/05/17 07:34 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
> Authors,
>
> Apologies for being late with this comment in the process of standardizat=
ion.
>
> The below section 5 describes the PHP for mapping server
>
>
> " As the Mapping Server does not specify the originator of a prefix
>     advertisement, it is not possible to determine PHP behavior solely
>     based on the Mapping Server advertisement.  However, PHP behavior
>     SHOULD be done in following cases:
>
>        The Prefix is intra-area type and the downstream neighbor is the
>        originator of the prefix.
>
>        The Prefix is inter-area type and downstream neighbor is an ABR,
>        which is advertising prefix reachability and is also generating
>        the Extended Prefix TLV with the A-flag set for this prefix as
>        described in section 2.1 of [RFC7684]."
>
>
> The text says "PHP behavior" should be done in following cases.
> In the second case here it's an ABR re-advertising a prefix and SID=20
> being advertised for this Prefix from a mapping server. If we interpret "=
PHP behavior should be done"
> As the penultimate router removing the label and forwarding the packet=20
> to ABR, It does not work since the inner labels gets exposed at the ABR.

above texts clearly specifies that PHP is done only for case where ABR is o=
riginating a prefix, not propagating it from other area. You can distinguis=
h between the two based on the A-flag in the Extended Prefix TLV as specifi=
ed in RFC7684, which the above text mentions.

thanks,
Peter
>
> Request authors to add clarification text around "PHP behavior".
>
> Rgds
> Shraddha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=20
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 3:28 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
> Subject: [OSPF] I-D Action:=20
> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct=
ories.
> This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP of the IETF=
.
>
>          Title           : OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing
>          Authors         : Peter Psenak
>                            Stefano Previdi
>                            Clarence Filsfils
>                            Hannes Gredler
>                            Rob Shakir
>                            Wim Henderickx
>                            Jeff Tantsura
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt
> 	Pages           : 35
> 	Date            : 2017-05-04
>
> Abstract:
>     Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths
>     within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological
>     sub-paths, called "segments".  These segments are advertised by the
>     link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
>
>     This draft describes the OSPF extensions required for Segment
>     Routing.
>
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-exten
> sions/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
> -13
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-
> extensions-13
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-exte
> nsions-13
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss=
ion until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> .
>