Return-Path: 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 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-Level: 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (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 [194.213.3.17]) (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 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) 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 (10.20.4.171) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) 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 ([10.20.5.198]) 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 To: "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@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-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.152.243] 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=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 780f64747a5b48133b109cbe1421a1e4 Archived-At: Cc: "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:34:31 -0000 --_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850873AA8blreml501mbx_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 dra= ft. Regards, Veerendranath From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem Sent: 14 February 2017 13:08 To: 'draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org' Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segmen= t Routing Dear Authors, While adverting prefixes for IPv6 Segment Routing (SRH support), the IPv6 p= refixes may not require to carry additional sub TLVs related to SRH some t= imes. So to identify prefixes are using for IPv6 Segment Routing, it may be helpf= ul we add one option bit in prefix options like 'N' bit added for Node iden= tification. 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| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ Regards, Veerendranath --_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850873AA8blreml501mbx_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Authors,

Gentle remainder,

 

We are planning to imp= lement the “identification of IPv6 prefix for segment routings  = (SRH) by setting the flag in option field” as described in below mail= .

Please provide your va= luable opinion  whether it is ok as per Extension draft.

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

 

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
Sent: 14 February 2017 13:08
To: 'draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org' <draft-i= etf-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 (S= RH support), the IPv6 prefixes  may not require to carry additional su= b TLVs related to SRH some times.

So to identify prefixes are using for IPv6 Segment R= outing, it may be helpful we add one option bit in prefix options like R= 16;N’ bit added for Node identification.

 

Please provide your opinion for adding new bit for I= Pv6 segment routing  in prefix options.

 

         &nb= sp;            =   0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7<= /o:p>

        &nbs= p;           +--+= --+--+--+--+--+--+--+

        &nbs= p;           |  |&nb= sp; | N|DN| P| x|LA|NU|

        &nbs= p;           +--+= --+--+--+--+--+--+--+

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

--_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850873AA8blreml501mbx_--