[OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing

Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com> Mon, 20 February 2017 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7ED1293F5; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:34:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qTppnu7CR1_0; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:34:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D256128AB0; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 01:34:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DBA50062; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:34:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML702-CAH.china.huawei.com ( by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:34:17 +0000
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by blreml702-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:04:10 +0530
From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing
Thread-Index: AdKGlFksyjOSP5PBTr6bWApBsa9BeQExrejw
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:34:09 +0000
Message-ID: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850873AA8@blreml501-mbx>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850873AA8blreml501mbx_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0207.58AAB821.01B4, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 780f64747a5b48133b109cbe1421a1e4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/UTUfjkhCOiaToBYSmFQiG0UhnJM>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:34:31 -0000

Dear Authors,
Gentle remainder,

We are planning to implement the "identification of IPv6 prefix for segment routings  (SRH) by setting the flag in option field" as described in below mail.
Please provide your valuable opinion  whether it is ok as per Extension draft.


From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
Sent: 14 February 2017 13:08
To: 'draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org' <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing

Dear Authors,
While adverting prefixes for IPv6 Segment Routing (SRH support), the IPv6 prefixes  may not require to carry additional sub TLVs related to SRH some times.
So to identify prefixes are using for IPv6 Segment Routing, it may be helpful we add one option bit in prefix options like 'N' bit added for Node identification.

Please provide your opinion for adding new bit for IPv6 segment routing  in prefix options.

                        0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7
                    |  |  | N|DN| P| x|LA|NU|