[OSPF] 答复: 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing
Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 21:07 UTC
Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.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 E19BC21F8FF8; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:07:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.762
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.762 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.687, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ZOKn7-JBFBU; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B49421E8082; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AXR65710; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:07:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:07:21 +0000
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:07:23 +0000
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.193]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 05:07:17 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing
Thread-Index: AQHO3MJb+fo8LHY5bUaoeJh35tBeYpobzVgg//99pICAAIamwA==
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:07:16 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227B32@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0822770A@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527C2606.5060906@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082277AB@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527C32B0.5070101@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082277D4@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527D41E3.1050008@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227A99@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527D4B80.6070308@cisco.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227AEE@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <527D5083.6070904@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <527D5083.6070904@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.129.94]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:07:37 -0000
Peter, In my understanding, the OSPF EP LSAs containing SID/label bindings just play the role of label distribution protocols. Since LDP can support the longest-matching algorithm for LFIB installation, why OSPF EP LSAs could not support that capability? BR Xiaohu ________________________________________ 发件人: Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com] 发送时间: 2013年11月9日 4:58 收件人: Xuxiaohu 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org 主题: Re: 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing Xiaohu, I understand what you started this thread with. What I'm trying to say is that even if OSPF separates the advertisement of prefix and prefix SID/label, you should not be using the SID/label advertisement without the actual prefix reachability advertisement. thanks, Peter On 11/8/13 12:50 , Xuxiaohu wrote: > Hi Peter, > > You misunderstood what I have said. On the contrary, the OSPF extension draft looks fine to me. It's the ISIS extension draft that I believed should follow the similar approach defined in the OSPF extension draft. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > ________________________________________ > 发件人: Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com] > 发送时间: 2013年11月9日 4:37 > 收件人: Xuxiaohu > 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing > > Xiaohu, > > OSPF SR draft clearly states that newly defined Extended Prefix Opaque > LSAs do not contribute to the prefix reachability. What you are asking > for is to negate that and install forwarding entries based on what is in > the EP-LSA, without prefix being advertised in any regular LSA. Once you > start to do that you will end up with all sorts of problems. I would > like to keep the current definition in place. > > > thanks, > Peter > > > On 11/8/13 12:04 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Sure. However, why not borrow the idea of longest-matching algorithm proposed in that RFC to SR? >> >> BR, >> Xiaohu >> >> ________________________________________ >> 发件人: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com] >> 发送时间: 2013年11月9日 3:56 >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >> 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing >> >> Xiaohu, >> >> there is no LDP in the SR network, so RFC5283 is not applicable. >> >> thanks, >> Peter >> >> On 11/7/13 17:28 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> >>> The 'longest-match algorithm' for LIB installation has been proposed by RFC5283. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Xiaohu >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> 发件人: Peter Psenak [ppsenak@cisco.com] >>> 发送时间: 2013年11月8日 8:39 >>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >>> 抄送: ospf@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >>> 主题: Re: 答复: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and IS-IS extension for segment routing >>> >>> Xiaohu, >>> >>> On 11/7/13 16:23 , Xuxiaohu wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>> ] >>>> if you aggregate on area/L1L2 boundary, SIDs/labels for individual >>>> prefixes that are covered by the aggregate are useless in the area to >>>> which you aggregate - there will be no FIB entries for these individual >>>> prefixes in such area. So if you aggregate, there is no need to >>>> propagate SIDs/labels for aggregated prefixes. >>>> >>>> [Xiaohu] "In the multi-area/level >>>> scenario where route summary between areas/levels is required, the IP >>>> longest-match algorithm SHOULD be used by SR-capable routers when >>>> processing label bindings advertised by the mapping server" For more details, please read the Introduction section of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-rtgwg-global-label-adv-00 >>> >>> I don't understand. If you summarize, then only the summary prefix will >>> be visible in the backbone (and remote areas) and installed in the FIB >>> on all routers in these areas. >>> >>> Where would you apply 'longest-match algorithm' when you only see the >>> single summary? How would you use the SID/label for prefixes that are >>> covered by the summary? >>> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> Isis-wg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> Isis-wg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> >
- [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention and I… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention a… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [OSPF] Inconsistency between OSPF extention a… Peter Psenak
- [OSPF] 答复: Inconsistency between OSPF extention a… Xuxiaohu
- [OSPF] 答复: Inconsistency between OSPF extention a… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [OSPF] 答复: Inconsistency between OSPF extenti… Peter Psenak
- [OSPF] 答复: 答复: Inconsistency between OSPF extenti… Xuxiaohu
- [OSPF] 答复: Inconsistency between OSPF extention a… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [OSPF] 答复: 答复: Inconsistency between OSPF ext… Peter Psenak
- [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: Inconsistency betwee… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: Inconsistency be… Peter Psenak
- [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: Inconsistency be… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: Inconsistenc… Peter Psenak
- [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: Inconsistenc… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: Inconsis… Peter Psenak