IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 8C2991270A3; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 Ku9taiy4xG7e; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FC69127F0E; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2674; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497028050; x=1498237650; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ZPh8T230nIeQwAAPsB2N3021w/LWSzkgqDqCkDL0byU=; b=RrfVE30Z4K507XgtqcY7DYv4AUneDbs8Qudzljp+BUS9YwExQIPuVf5g 2P59HIVlbiecUDWpMn2jIIOt/yAZBIsrvZDqp+o8sQPk7F4Q2P+atDlh0 UDgmgLeIXNm5d737YSSPju8XLtGRSUMVx9cZoWXTu9nPhTFIVO+cbvhF/ 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CzAQBO1DpZ/4gNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1iBbweDbZwFlgOCEYYkAhqCZ0AXAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEDIxFFEAIBCBEDAQIBAgIfBAMCAgIwFAEICAIEAQ0FiiuwZIImi2IBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQuHNQGDIIRqFw+CbIJhAQSePAKTP4IGhUOFJ4UWlGkBIQI0gQp0FUiFDBwZgU12iDKBDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,317,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="437526725"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Jun 2017 17:07:29 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v59H7SJH029247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:07:29 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:07:28 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:07:28 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE
Thread-Index: AQHS4S8Y37adDddm1EW7MKj9+rQk+aIdBbaA//+9pQA=
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:07:28 +0000
Message-ID: <D5604DBA.B271E%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D5602C7F.B268A%acee@cisco.com> <593AD535.2060905@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <593AD535.2060905@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EE3BBFF57419F447B1EB080C59E28D7E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/sLvOLtqfcmAPBMEt7p0QyhShFCE>
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: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:07:33 -0000

Hi Peter, 

I’d say that if none of the implementations are using it, we should remove
it. 

Thanks,
Acee 

On 6/9/17, 1:04 PM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com> 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
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email