Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 12 June 2017 08:18 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 DAFCF1273B1; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 01:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.503 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, 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 zPn_d-m-7-bt; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 01:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
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 74010128D16; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 01:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2443; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497255486; x=1498465086; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CEAna6S63e4eq330D3+oYNu30ZiWexDTKoEMhSoRzmQ=; b=ZMJsrGZ0hqdB1SMd8vJRr2TIVwUZKBOJU+RgVwz6XUFbQaE2fuejZ+hQ 0eegTqe+d9rUgV4LfFJPmqJfTIP2iz9bTmOisqb/uZCTGa3LXuFxNgLsu 06gLwYc96tb74eByeeX79DwBOhktFw12M7jmx5K992eXW0GACxYGXA137 w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,333,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="655352017"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jun 2017 08:18:03 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.57] (ams-ppsenak-nitro8.cisco.com [10.60.140.57]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5C8I2bW005871; Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:18:03 GMT
Message-ID: <593E4E3D.7010105@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:18:05 +0200
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: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
CC: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
References: <D5602C7F.B268A%acee@cisco.com> <593AD535.2060905@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <593AD535.2060905@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/rHHH9BbCnZ1CATbQUj6HS76PweI>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 12 Jun 2017 08:18:08 -0000

Hi,

I would like to get some feedback on the usage of the SID/Label Binding TLV.

Is there any implementation that uses SID/Label Binding TLV for 
advertising the SID/Label binding to a FEC as specified in section 6 of 
the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16 or section 2.4 of 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-12?

If not, do we see this as something we want to preserve in the IGP SR 
drafts?

ISIS uses The SID/Label Binding TLV to advertise
prefixes to SID/Label mappings, which is known to be supported by 
several implementations and that piece needs to be preserved.

thanks,
Peter

On 09/06/17 19:04 , Peter Psenak wrote:
> Acee,
>
> my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label
> Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for
> SRMS advertisement like in ISIS.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
>> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
>> To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>,
>> "spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org>" <spring@ietf.org
>> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>>, "isis@ietf.org <mailto:isis@ietf.org>"
>> <isis@ietf.org <mailto:isis@ietf.org>>
>> Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>"
>> <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also
>> effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)
>>
>>     Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,
>>
>>     As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO
>>     extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are
>>     not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As
>>     document shepherd,  my proposal is that they simply be removed since
>>     they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that
>>     no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also
>>     deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV
>>     registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or
>>     indefinitely ;^).
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Acee
>>
>
> .
>