[OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141A6129B51; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ds00FrlmW40t; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58E521200E5; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2515; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497019366; x=1498228966; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=SthA6Z2dXiBiayzTXnOGEmBFdN4uEKNaptGRc0vUing=; b=JwW1bZ1l16pc+iDqevrmsQa2C//wVluO9uHwXn2QwL0gG6i7/ZukrCd7 nsnbAI6sQbAdQL7tjqZncuw0xN66GFw+TryZtSo/+q6wyBh58VhaFhmO4 CRb8VsltJfN2r4SAGQF7/PEVD2PG38y2gvxmIcE6bO7KQRSKxZ0/7OTB7 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,317,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="438129117"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Jun 2017 14:42:45 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com []) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v59EgjCM015572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:42:45 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ( by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:42:44 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:42:44 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "isis@ietf.org" <isis@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)
Thread-Index: AQHS4S6nuwx9Nqg780KTcEnSvq5lNQ==
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:42:44 +0000
Message-ID: <D5602C1D.B2686%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5602C1DB2686aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/yfTZe6tr5husAVSFFG5ZG1tVrpM>
Subject: [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)
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 14:42:48 -0000


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 ;^).