Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05.txt

Hi Alia, Acee, all

draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06 has just been uploaded to address the comments received.
Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.txt

Please see inline [Authors] more details about issues resolution

> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
 > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 7:59 PM
 > To: Alia Atlas
 > Cc: ospf@ietf.org
 > Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05.txt
 > 
 > Hi Alia,
 > 
 > So the issues we are still discussing are:
 > 
 >       1. Common IGP Tunnel Type/Tunnel Attribute IANA Registry or simply
 > reference the BGP registries created by RFC 5512.

[Authors] There are 2 registries:
a) Tunnel Encapsulation Type: registry shared with BGP  (since draft-05)
Tunnel types are shared with the BGP  extension [RFC5512] and hence are defined in the existing IANA registry  "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types".
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05#section-4

b) Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs: registry dedicated to OSPF (changed in draft-06)
- Difficult to share with IS-IS as IS-IS has TLV size restrictions which do not match BGP and OSPF. Due to this restriction future sub-TLV may be encoded in a more compact way, possibly with less information.
- Difficult to share with BGP as BGP attach the attribute to various type of BGP routes hence needs to handle labelled/unlabeled routes, underlay/overlay routes... The color sub-TLV already has a different syntax. (yet the same sub-TLV code point could have been used.)

 >       2. 1-octet or 2-octet type/length in Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
 > Sub-TLVs. I’d vote for 2-octet for RFC 7770 consistency even though the
 > BGP registry code point is limited to 255 types.

[Authors] draft-06 use 2 octets to encode the type, and 2 octets to encode the length, as typical for OSPF.

 >       3. Addition of the RFC 5640 ECMP block suggested by Carlos

[Authors] Done.

Thanks
--Authors

 > Pignataro.
 > 
 > Thanks,
 > Acee
 > 
 > 
 > On 7/3/17, 10:52 AM, "OSPF on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org"
 > <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
 > 
 > >
 > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
 > >directories.
 > >This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP of the IETF.
 > >
 > >        Title           : Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF
 > >        Authors         : Xiaohu Xu
 > >                          Bruno Decraene
 > >                          Robert Raszuk
 > >                          Luis M. Contreras
 > >                          Luay Jalil
 > >	Filename        : draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05.txt
 > >	Pages           : 10
 > >	Date            : 2017-07-03
 > >
 > >Abstract:
 > >   Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons.  A large variety of
 > >   tunnel types are defined and the ingress needs to select a type of
 > >   tunnel which is supported by the egress and itself.  This document
 > >   defines how to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router
 > >   Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs).
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
 > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap/
 > >
 > >There are also htmlized versions available at:
 > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05
 > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05
 > >
 > >A diff from the previous version is available at:
 > >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05
 > >
 > >
 > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
 > >submission
 > >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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.