Re: [spring] comment on draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution-00.txt
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Fri, 08 April 2016 13:12 UTC
Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C8F12D897 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 06:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 e8qbP4Ex8eOe for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 06:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5228C12D694 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 06:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7103; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460121161; x=1461330761; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=yB1QdnVi2Zq5yJzk/Hrzr/VlZyJ1QyKip6vwCQjs5/I=; b=QaV29jUIo7q64YGsHk6x//rDYi3v9uqdEWZIr8UvittHMcCj4XeG2nJk 04f3+YMTntrMF8LpaVj/Rm0brfyflysnOiw1lI4XsRDxOjnfoj6vuriru jKpJbN+z/vnzXmc2yMX+F/97YOFd+w5PgdpeGSj6Jv7RJEriWqn/kgMjJ w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AOAgBCrQdX/4wNJK1cgmtMU30GtUyEcwENgXOGDQKBNDgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEEBAQEELVwCAQgOAwQBASgHMhQJCAEBBAESCIgfwEQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEVhiGES4R1hSAFkxmEawGOBI8UjyQBHgEBQoNnbIg7fgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.24,449,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="89659603"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Apr 2016 13:12:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u38DCeiY009058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:12:40 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:12:39 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:12:39 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: comment on draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution-00.txt
Thread-Index: AdGRei3SbivypuFnTQaH2BFo593PjQAHg3EQ
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:12:39 +0000
Message-ID: <bd75e6f7e1a5445a85409e0e447e1d81@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <BY2PR05MB6142EDCED9EF0A5186A66A3A9910@BY2PR05MB614.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR05MB6142EDCED9EF0A5186A66A3A9910@BY2PR05MB614.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.126.203]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_bd75e6f7e1a5445a85409e0e447e1d81XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/iAZ7Wpoznm6ctrW-WBD2hUREeVM>
Subject: Re: [spring] comment on draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution-00.txt
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:12:44 -0000
Chris -
Agreed.
I will include that in the upcoming revision.
Les
From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 5:44 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] comment on draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution-00.txt
Authors and WG,
It seems to me that this document should explicitly state how to handle prefixes and SIDs advertised with different values of the SR-algorithm field. Here SR-algorithm refers to SPF or Strict SPF, and not the Preference Algorithm defined in this draft.
Presumably receiving two identical prefixes with different algorithm fields and different SIDs does not constitute a prefix conflict. It would be good to make the expected behavior explicit in the text.
Thanks,
Chris
- [spring] comment on draft-ginsberg-spring-conflic… Chris Bowers
- Re: [spring] comment on draft-ginsberg-spring-con… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)