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

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
>> To: OSPF WG List <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Cc: "[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>> <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> 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
>>
>
> .
>