Re: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for OSPFv2 Segment Routing - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-17
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 05 July 2017 17:30 UTC
Return-Path: <acee@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 6F709131DA8; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 dLJMZV3CXidJ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6252131AB1; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=34862; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1499275820; x=1500485420; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BnlbCnam+XtOdnm4RzSyN0qdNpzV3imw7sQCbt0b4y8=; b=A2EHzcEykVcNZBX0sjjP/r6IwhfuiAFNDBdugS732soKl+dBvqaDwYdz pJ8k7OjY/x5+dsw/urPzYHIcpWxzstYhzOvYdv4a2Pq3gG2QZRN+KtnS4 dWziv/ONS3wcA0h3cw7om3byAWI24QwfPEu/1ecOCFZY/bvqZ+kGZmuqr s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CYAADAIV1Z/4cNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1ljfxEHjgKRZ5YAgg4DIQ2FbhyDAj8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGQEFAQEYAwYREycdAQgYAgIRDgcCBCULFRIEARKKLxCuNoImgz1XAYcqAQEBAQEFAQEBAR8FgQuCHIUtghiBDIMmgSENFhcVE4JUgmEFiU6GeoFdjGECh0WDRYh5ggyFSopIlTIBHziBCnUVSYUTHBmBEgE6doZEAQUggQyBDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,312,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="264371901"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Jul 2017 17:30:18 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v65HUIVJ027183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Jul 2017 17:30:18 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 13:30:17 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 13:30:17 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTSI)" <db3546@att.com>, "spring-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <spring-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for OSPFv2 Segment Routing - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-17
Thread-Index: AQHS9bRedhS6rxt9nU26gkEjef9dlQ==
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 17:30:17 +0000
Message-ID: <D5829A33.B7215%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <DD0607252360FB4F91CC78F7F3025D15@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/SzeU6zHr7aAi0-OYsqyyV7o1g1k>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for OSPFv2 Segment Routing - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-17
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: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 17:30:28 -0000
The WG last call on the -17 updates to the document has concluded without substantive comment. Thanks, Acee On 6/23/17, 2:07 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com> wrote: >Since an unimplemented section was removed and there were also a number of >clarifications, I’d like to request a WG last call on the modified draft. >It will end on July 1st, 2017 at 12:00 AM GMT. For your convenience, here >are the relevant links. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extension >s >/ > >There are also htmlized versions available at: >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-17 >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-exte >n >sions-17 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensio >n >s-17 > >Thanks, >Acee > > > > >On 6/23/17, 6:14 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" ><ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote: > >>Hi Alia, >> >>thanks for comments, please see inline: >> >> >>On 31/05/17 04:05 , Alia Atlas wrote: >>> As is customary, I have done my AD review >>> of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16 once publication has >>> been requested. First, I would like to thank the editors & many >>> authors, Peter, Stefano, Clarence, Hannes, Rob, Wim & Jeff, for the >>>work >>> that they have put in so far and the remaining work that is greatly >>>needed. >>> >>> While there are a great many issues to be handled, they fall primarily >>> into three categories. The first is simply not going through and >>> tightening up the details; for example, stating that the length of a >>>TLV >>> is variable provides no meaning. The second is that the technical >>> documents from SPRING that this draft depends on do not adequately >>> describe the use of the advertised information (SID/Label Binding TLV) >>> or some of the concepts (e.g. SR Mapping Server). The third is a more >>> common set of handling error cases and adding clarity to the intended >>> behavior. I do not see issues with the encodings but I do see >>>fragility >>> with the unstated assumptions and behaviors. The draft describes >>> encodings, but very little of the handling, behaviors, or meaning - and >>> the references do not provide adequate detail. >>> >>> I have spent all day (and evening) doing this review and I am quite >>> disappointed and concerned about the document. I would strongly >>> recommend having sharing the next WGLC with the SPRING working group; >>> perhaps more eyes will help with the discrepancies. >>> >>> I have not yet decided what to do about the "early" IANA allocation - >>> which has now existed for this draft for 3 years. I do know that there >>> are implementations, >>> but I am currently seeing the failure of this work to successfully >>> complete as an example of an issue with providing early allocations. >>> >>> MAJOR ISSUES: >>> >>> 1) This draft has 7 authors. The limit for authors & editors is 5, as >>> is clearly stated in RFC 7322 Sec 4.1.1 and has been the case for well >>> over a decade, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Is there >>>a >>> reason to not simply list the active editor and move the others to >>> contributors? One of the authors is already listed there. I regret >>> that failure to deal earlier with this long-standing IETF policy will >>>be >>> delaying progressing the draft. >> >>I don't know how to resolve this. I can not tell any of the coauthors >>that I'm going to drop him from the list after his contribution to this >>for several years. Two of us are marked as editors already. >> >> >>> >>> 2) This expired individual >>> draft(draft-minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection-03) is listed as >>> Informative - but IS ACTUALLY NORMATIVE since it DEFINES the >>> "M-bit - When the bit is set, the binding represents a mirroring >>>context >>> as defined in [I-D.minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection]." >>> Unfortunately, when I look there for the definition of a mirroring >>> context, it doesn't exists. >> >>Section 6 was removed. >> >> >>> >>> 3) The following Informative references expired several years ago and - >>> being individual drafts - do not appear to convey the SPRING or TEAS WG >>> consensus. >>> a) draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-03 was >>> replaced with draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-07 and >>>there >>> are considerable differences. >> >>fixed >> >>> b) It is unclear what happened >>> to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01, but I do not see >>> any successor - or reason for this individual draft to explain the >>> OSPFv2 extensions more than work from the SPRING WG. >> >>I replaced it with RFC7855. >> >>> >>> 4) Sec 3.3: Is it ok to advertise an SRLB TLV without advertising the >>> SR-Algorithm TLV? What is the expected behavior and assumptions by the >>> receiver? >> >>These are independent TLVs. Both are optional and there is no dependency >>between them. >> >>> >>> 5) Sec 3.4: What happens if an SRMS Preference TLV is advertised >>> without an SR-Algorithm TLV in the same scope? >> >>SRMS Preference TLV is independent of the SR-Algorithm TLV. >> >>The fact that SRMS provides mapping between addresses and SIDs, does not >>require SRMS to support SR at all. SRMS functionality can be run on a >>node that is never in the data path and as such does not need to support >>SR. >> >> >>> I see that it says "For >>> the purpose of the SRMS Preference Sub-TLV advertisement, AS scope >>> flooding is required." but also provides for area scope flooding. Some >>> words clarifying the expected behavior would be useful. >> >> "For the purpose of the SRMS >> Preference Sub-TLV advertisement, AS scope flooding is required." >> >>above refers to a generic case, where the SRMS can be located anywhere >>in the network, which means it can be in a different area. >> >> >> "If >> the SRMS advertisements from the SRMS server are only used inside the >> area to which the SRMS server is attached, area scope flooding may be >> used." >> >>Above says that if the usage of the SRMS advertisements is bound to an >>area, area flooding is sufficient. >> >>I added some more text to the first part above to make it clear that the >>is referring to the multi-area case. >> >> >>> >>> 6) Sec 5: "In such case, MPLS EXP bits of the Prefix-SID are not >>> preserved for >>> the final destination (the Prefix-SID being removed)." I am quite >>> startled to see an assumption that MPLS Pipe mode is being forced as >>> part of specifying PHP mode! This will also break any ECN or 3-color >>> marking that has affected the MPLS EXP bits. I would like to see and >>> understand a clear justification for why short-pipe mode is being >>> required instead of Uniform (or up to implementation/configuration.). >>> Basically, this sentence means that transport considerations are a >>> necessary section - which is completely inappropriate in an IGP draft. >> >>sentence has been removed. >> >>> >>> 7) Sec 6: This section defines the SID/Label Binding sub-TLV - which >>> appears to be a way to advertise an explicit path - and has a SID/Label >>> by which the path can be entered. How and what state is set up by the >>> sending router to create the indicated segment is completely unclear. >>> I have hunted >>> through draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing, >>>draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, >>> and draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop, RFC7855, >>> and draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions. As far as I can tell, >>> NONE of them clearly describe the details of where and why this >>> advertising is needed. Obviously, this mechanism does allow the >>> potential shortening of the MPLS label stack at the cost of advertising >>> multi-hop explicit path segments across the entire area or AS. There >>> MUST be a normative description of what the sending router will do when >>> a packet is received with the specified label. >> >>section 6 has been removed. >> >>> >>> 8) Sec 4: "The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described in >>> [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]" Where precisely is >>> an SRMS and its behavior/role actually defined? >>> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-07 claims:"SR to LDP >>> interworking requires a SRMS as defined in >>> [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]." but that wouldn't be >>> appropriate, of course, and it isn't there either! >>> draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-04 talks about SRMS, but >>>doesn't >>> define it. draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11 mentions in Sec 3.5.1 >>> that "A Remote-Binding SID S advertised by the mapping server M" and >>> refers to the ldp-interop draft for further details - but obviously not >>> about an SRMS. >> >> >>A new text has been added to filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop >>to explain the SRMS better. >> >>> >>> Minor Issues: >>> >>> 1) In Sec 3.1, it says: "The SR-Algorithm TLV is optional. It MUST 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 >> >>I removed the above sentence, it is not required. Following sentence in >>the draft clearly says: >> >>"If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by the node, such node is >>considered as not being segment routing capable." >> >>> also be advertised." Please provide a pointer in the text to the >>> behavior for a receiving router if one or both of these are violated? >>> For the requirement to advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV, please clarify >>> that this is in the same RI LSA as the SID/Label Range TLV was >>> advertised & with the same scope. What does it mean, in terms of the >>> receiving router, to determine that the sending router supports SR or >>> not - given the possibility of receiving other SR-related TLVS in an RI >>> LSA without getting an SR-Algorithm TLV? >> >>please see above. >> >>> >>> 2) Sec 3.1: The SR-Algorithm TLV simply defines "Length: Variable". >>> Given that advertising Algorithm 0 is required, I'm fairly sure that >>>the >>> Length has to be a minimum of 1 - and, to prevent overrun & weird >>> issues, let's have a reasonable maximum (for instance, 24) too. It >>> wouldn't hurt to remind readers that the length is just that of the >>> value field - though experienced OSPF implementers will know that. >> >>I added "dependent on number of Algorithms advertised". >> >>But I'm not sure why would we want to limit ourselves to 24 or any >>specific length. >> >>> >>> 3) Sec 3.1 & Sec 3.2 & Sec 3.3: "For the purpose of SR-Algorithm TLV >>> advertisement, area scope flooding is required." and "For the purpose >>>of >>> SID/Label Range TLV advertisement, area scope flooding is required." >>> and "For the purpose of SR Local Block Sub-TLV TLV advertisement, >>>area >>> scope flooding is required." Please capitalize REQUIRED as per RFC >>> 2119. Otherwise, please explain behavior when area scope isn't used. >> >>I change to REQUIRED. >> >>I'm not sure why do we need to explain what happens if other scope is >>used, when we say what is REQUIRED. If someone uses link scope, >>information would not be propagated where it needs to be present. If >>someone uses AS scope the information would go to places where it is not >>needed. Do we need to say that explicitly in the draft? We used teh same >>wording in other RFCs, without describing what happens if the REQUIRED >>is not followed. >> >> >>> >>> 4) Sec 3.2: The SID/Label Range TLV doesn't indicate that include a >>> SID/Label sub-TLV is required - but I don't understand how it could be >>> interpreted otherwise; nor does it indicate what to do if there are >>> multiple SID/Label sub-TLVs included in a single SID/Label Range TLV. >> >>added text that the SID/Label sub-TLV MUST be included >> >>I also added some text about handling of multiple SID/Label TLVs. >> >> >> >>> Again "Length" is just defined as variable. In this case, it clearly >>> can't be less than 11 (probably 12, assuming padding to the 32-bit >>> boundary). It would be useful to have an upper-bound on length, but >>>at >>> least here I can see the argument that meaningful flexibility is >>> provided for. >> >>I added "dependent on sub-TLVs.", which we used in rfc7684 >> >>> >>> 5) SID index is used without introduction in Sec 3.2. It isn't defined >>> in the terminology of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11 and the >>>other >>> uses of it in this document aren't enough to clearly define it. Please >>> add at least a description of its meaning before use - in a terminology >>> section, if necessary. >> >>Added some text at the beginning of section 3.2. >> >>> >>> 6) Sec 3.2: "The originating router advertises the following ranges: >>> Range 1: [100, 199] >>> Range 2: [1000, 1099] >>> Range 3: [500, 599]" >>> Please turn this into the information actually advertised - i.e. >>> Range 1: Range Size: 100 SID/Label sub-TLV: 100 => meaning [100, >>>199] >>> etc. >> >>fixed. >> >> >>> >>> 7) 3.2. SID/Label Range TLV: Please specify that the sender MUST NOT >>> advertise overlapping ranges & how to handle the case when it does. >>> This is required by draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution. >> >>done. >> >>> >>> 8) Sec 3.3 SR Local Block (SRLB) Sub-TLV: The document doesn't specify >>> that the SR Local Block TLV MUST include a SID/Label sub-TLV nor >>> indicate what to do if multiple are included. >> >>added text that the SID/Label sub-TLV MUST be included >> >>I also added some text about multiple SID/Label TLVs being present. >> >>> The Length, again, isn't >>> specified at all and clearly has at least a minimum. >> >>I added "dependent on sub-TLVs.", which we used in rfc7684 >> >> >>> I don't see a >>> reference to an SR Local Block or the need to advertise it >>> in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11; perhaps I missed where the >>> requirement and usage are defined? >> >>The need for advertisement is described in latest version of >>draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls. >> >>I also modified the text in OSPF draft to better describe the need for >>advertisemement. >> >> >>> >>> 9) Sec 3.3: "Each time a SID from the SRLB is allocated, it SHOULD also >>>be >>> reported to all components..." Presumably, this is subjected to >>>the >>> normal OSPF dampening - it'd be nice to note that somewhere - since >>> rapid sequential allocation may not provide the reporting speed >>>anticipated. >> >> >>SRLB is something that is either configured or eventually tight to a >>platform. In neither case, this is not expected to change frequently. >> >>> >>> 10) Sec 4: "AF: Address family for the prefix. Currently, the only >>>supported >>> value is 0 for IPv4 unicast. The inclusion of address family in >>> this TLV allows for future extension." Could you please clarify >>> if this is to reuse the same TLV for OSPFv3 so IPv6 can be supported, >>> are you thinking of extending OSPFv2 for IPv6 prefixes for some cases >>>or >>> something else? >>> I think the current phrasing is likely to raise >>> questions. >> >>This mirrors what we have done for OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV in RFC768. >>We defined these top level containers in a way that they are extendible >>for other AFs. >> >> >>> Similarly, please define "Prefix length: Length of the >>> prefix" clearly. >> >>changed to "Length of prefix in bits." to mirror RFC768. >> >>> I really don't understand what the benefit of having a >>> TLV that pretends to support multiple AFs but can't is versus the >>> clarity of specifying the prefix lengths. >> >>I fixed the Address Prefix encoding text to mirror RFC7684. >> >>> >>> 11) Sec 4: Again "Length: Variable" - It should have a minimum and >>> preferable describe a function for how it is computed. A maximum is >>> probably unlikely with sub-TLVs. >> >>I added "dependent on sub-TLVs.", which we used in rfc7684 >> >> >>> >>> 12) Sec 4: OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV: Does this TLV has any >>> meaning or action associated with it without including sub-TLVs? >> >>no. >> >>> Are >>> there mandatory sub-TLVs? What is a receiving router to do with it? >> >>no. If it's empty, router just stores it in LSDB and do not use it for >>anything. >> >>> >>> 13) Sec 5: "If multiple Prefix-SIDs are advertised for the same prefix, >>>the >>> receiving router MUST use the first encoded SID and MAY use >>> subsequent SIDs." What does this even mean? A receiving router >>>when >>> making the decision to use a subsequent SID is making a decision to not >>> use the first encoded SID; it's not like the router is going to stick >>> both SID/Labels onto the stack. Please describe this in meaningful >>> normative terms. >> >>replaced that text with a new one. >> >>> >>> 14) Sec 5:" When calculating the outgoing label for the prefix, the >>> router MUST >>> take into account the E and P flags advertised by the next-hop >>>router >>> if that router advertised the SID for the prefix. This MUST be >>>done >>> regardless of whether the next-hop router contributes to the best >>> path to the prefix." First, I assume this is "NP flag" because >>> there is no P flag. >> >>corrected >> >>> Second - please clarify to "take into account, as described below, >>> the E and NP flags...". >> >>done >> >> >> >> >Third, the M flag must also be taken into >>> account - given the text later in the section. >> >>corrected >> >>> >>> 15) Sec 5: "When a Prefix-SID is advertised in an Extended Prefix Range >>> TLV, then the value advertised in the Prefix SID Sub-TLV is interpreted >>>as a >>> starting SID value." This appears to contradict "SID/Index/Label: >>> According to the V and L flags, it contains either: >>> >>> A 32-bit index defining the offset in the SID/Label space >>> advertised by this router. >>> >>> A 24-bit label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for >>> encoding the label value." >> >>I added changed the text to: >> >>"Prefix SID Sub-TLV is interpreted as a starting SID/Label value", which >>I believe should be sufficient. >> >>> I assume that what is meant by the first quote is "...is >>>interpreted, >>> if the V flag is clear, as a starting SID value, and if the V flag is >>> set, as a starting Label value." >>> Otherwise, it looks like the >>> Prefix-SID sub-TLV couldn't be included in the Extended Prefix Range >>>TLV >>> if a label value would be used. >>> It would be helpful for Example 2 to show the label case. >>> >>> 16) Sec 6.1: "aggregate IGP or TE path cost." Given that this is an >>> OSPF draft, it'd be helpful to indicate whether there are challenges >>> with non-comparable OSPF metrics (I'm thinking about AS-external type 2 >>> costs) or if the path will never include such costs. >> >>section 6 was removed >> >>> >>> 17) Sec 6.2: "a domain and hence need to be disambiguated using a >>> domain-unique Router-ID." Given that the Prefix-SIDs and sub-TLVs can >>> be distributed between areas and even redistributed between protocols, >>> please clearly define what is meant by a "domain" or point to the >>> appropriate definition. >> >>section 6 was removed >> >> >>> >>> 18) Sec 4, 5, 6: Is it possible to have an OSPF Extended Prefix Range >>> TLV that includes both a Prefix SID Sub-TLV and a SID/Label Binding >>> Sub-TLV? What does that mean? >> >>SID/Label Binding TLV was removed. >> >>> >>> What does it mean if there are multiple prefixes described in the OSPF >>> Extended Prefix Range TLV that includes a SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV? >>> Does the SID/Label sub-sub-TLV indicate a single SID Index or Label >>>that >>> is used for the single path to all those prefixes? Is it the start of >>>a >>> list of SID Indices or Labels? >>> I see that the SID/Label Binding sub-TLV can be in both the OSPF >>> Extended Prefx Range TLV as well as the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV - but >>> there is no text on differences in interpretation. >> >>SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV was removed >> >> >>> >>> 19) Sec 7.1 & 7.2: Another couple "Length: Variable." Please actually >>> specify the value. I think that, given the padding to 32-bit alignment, >>> there is a single correct value. >> >>fixed. >> >>> >>> 20) Sec 7.1 and 7.2: Given that the Flag bits have exactly the same >>> meaning - it'd be clearer to have them defined once. >> >>done >> >>> >>> 21) Sec 8.1: "An SR Mapping Server MUST use the OSPF Extended Prefix >>> Range TLV when advertising SIDs for prefixes. Prefixes of different >>> route-types can be combined in a single OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV >>> advertised by an SR Mapping Server." So - I can't find a normative >>> definition of an SRMS to determine why it is always necessary to use an >>> OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV instead of an OSPF Extended Prefix TLV. >> >>for simplicity we only want to use OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV when >>advertising SRMS mapping entries. It's the encoding we enforced for SRMS >>advertisement. >> >>> I don't see how advertising prefixes from different route-types can >>>work >>> unless the prefixes are adjacent, which seems likely to be uncommon. >>> Perhaps what is meant is "Because the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV >>> doesn't include a Route-Type field, as in the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV, >>> it is possible to include adjacent prefixes from different Route-Types >>> in the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV." >> >>yes, that is correct. I added the above text to the draft. >> >>> >>> 22) Sec 8.1: "If multiple routers advertise a Prefix-SID for the same >>> prefix, then >>> the Prefix-SID MUST be the same. This is required in order to allow >>> traffic load-balancing when multiple equal cost paths to the >>>destination >>> exist in the OSPFv2 routing domain." How is this enforced? What are >>> the consequences of it not being conformed to? This is NOT a protocol >>> implementation requirement. This should really be called out in a >>> Manageability Considerations with warnings. >> >>I removed the above text. >> >>> >>> 23) Sec 8.2:"If no Prefix-SID was advertised for the prefix in the >>> source area >>> by the router that contributes to the best path to the prefix, >>>the >>> originating ABR will use the Prefix-SID advertised by any other >>> router when propagating the Prefix-SID for the prefix to other >>> areas." I believe that this depends on the assumption that if a >>> Prefix-SID is advertised by any router, the Prefix-SID will be the >>> same. Please be explicit in this assumption, since the requirement on >>> the network operator should be clear as well as the consequences of not >>> conforming. >> >>above text says that the prefix SID may come from different router then >>the one which is contributing to the best path, if the router that >>contributes to the best path is not advertising the SID. No assumption >>about multiple SIDs being the same is made. >> >>> >>> 24) Sec 10: The Implementation Status section should indicate that it >>> is to be removed before publication as an RFC. Also, the complete >>> implementation part seems a bit dated - given the draft's technical >>> changes in the last 2 years. >> >>I added a sentence about this section being removed before publication. >> >>> >>> >>> NITS: >>> >>> 1) Sec 2.1: s/"SID/Label TLV"/"SID/Label sub-TLV" >> >>fixed all of them >>> >>> 2) Sec 3.2:"Initially, the only supported Sub-TLV is the SID/Label TLV >>> as defined >>> in Section 2.1. The SID/Label advertised in the SID/Label TLV >>> represents the first SID/Label in the advertised range." >>> replace SID/Label TLV with SID/Label sub-TLV. >> >>done. >> >>> >>> 3) Sec 3.3 & Sec 3.4: " The SR Local Block (SRLB) Sub-TLV is a >>>top-level >>> TLV of the Router Information Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770])." >>> Please correct the descriptions (many) to SR Local Block (SRLB) Sub-TLV >>> to SR Local Block SRLB TLV. The same issue exists for "SRMS >>>Preference >>> Sub-TLV". >> >>I updated the text to use the expanded name first time and use >>abbreviated name in other places. >> >>thanks, >>Peter >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alia >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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] Working Group Last Call for OSPFv2 Segment… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for OSPFv2 Seg… Acee Lindem (acee)