Re: [OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 12:00 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 C9E86129524; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 04:00:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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, 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 n0tTyDv5VEb6; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 04:00:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93C85129537; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 04:00:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3380; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1488283238; x=1489492838; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vDHzXyNqGuMyHmzHVc6LwqUyFyytDjKfgBK7sieNGTk=; b=bsUywI9o+2kEEZQw1PeWJzeI8i9hQgwE4/tD6gyQT6P6NrlvboF69cBo VnHGk7f1DdTTRvdPmcUwpfQe+Qqxj6pP6f2lTGTCbnOkoJfQJFF7ft9wJ blrKOkVDHCFClPrfJvtTLK6naft1KR0HfAyVrCsz/CuLl19h2I3QCZVe2 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ASBACmZbVY/xbLJq1TChkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYQ0gQaOVpBwl0KCRwGDWgKCaRUBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIRwAQEBBDhAAQwECxEEAQEBCRYIBwkDAgECATQIAQgGAQwBBQIBAYlzsk0SizMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhkyEb4QsCwEBhgABBJwjkiyBe4UggzCGTYg8inY1IoEBIRQIFxWFDR0ZgUk/NYd6gi4BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,219,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="652870770"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Feb 2017 12:00:35 +0000
Received: from [10.61.104.243] (dhcp-10-61-104-243.cisco.com [10.61.104.243]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1SC0Ypv017960; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:00:35 GMT
Message-ID: <58B56661.3060608@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:00:33 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>, "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>
References: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78850873AA8@blreml501-mbx> <58B43F60.8080009@cisco.com> <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885087738B@blreml501-mbx>
In-Reply-To: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F7885087738B@blreml501-mbx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/eoA5mLAojWsi8IT9JU7178RJzgM>
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:00:40 -0000
Veerendranath, OSPFv3 SR extension would need a bigger changes for SRv6. The point you are raising is valid, but I'm not sure the flag is the right approach. We may want to detach the SRv6 advertisements from the prefix reachability advertisements completely, because we do no want the SRv6 segments to contribute to the routing at all. We are working on the ISIS extension for SRv6 and once that is done I will update the OSPFv3 draft accordingly. thanks, Peter On 28/02/17 06:32 , Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem wrote: > Dear Peter, > > We used segment routing support flag (bit 6 or 7 in RI capability information) to notify the node support SR capability. > But there may be some legacy I/O boards which are not capable for SRH/MPLS processing, can be bound to OSPF process. > > OSPFv3 extended LSAs can also be used to carry normal prefix information same as regular LSAs. > > For MPLS, we have sub TLVs for SR prefix information, so that we can identify the prefixes not used for segment routing. > > But for IPv6, prefix information itself prefix SID, so mostly sub TLV information is not used to carry additional SR information. > So in this case, I feel, we may need a flag to identify the prefixes not supported segment routing or supporting segment routing. > > Regards, > Veerendranath > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] > Sent: 27 February 2017 20:32 > To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend.authors@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org > Cc: ospf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identification for IPv6 Segment Routing > > Veerendranath, > > can you please elaborate on the use case? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking for. > > thanks, > Peter > > On 20/02/17 10:34 , Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem wrote: >> 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. >> >> Regards, >> >> Veerendranath >> >> *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| >> >> +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ >> >> Regards, >> >> Veerendranath >> > > . >
- [OSPF] [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes identi… Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
- [OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixes id… Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
- Re: [OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixe… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixe… Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
- Re: [OSPF] FW: [OSPFv3 IPv6 SR] Regarding prefixe… Peter Psenak