Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sun, 02 September 2018 21:31 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 BB187130DD0; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 CrGxfhhIQH-1; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu [18.9.25.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E624130DD8; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190d-ee5ff70000002c0d-4d-5b8c56c99d38
Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id B4.CB.11277.AC65C8B5; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 17:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w82LVmue030366; Sun, 2 Sep 2018 17:31:49 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w82LVhWu020308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 2 Sep 2018 17:31:45 -0400
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 16:31:43 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Rob Shakir <robjs@google.com>, bruno.decraene@orange.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180902213142.GD91593@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <152951284387.28600.11874107921186798735.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c8beb644-253e-bcfe-7fd0-1d46a5b04d81@gmail.com> <22642_1531139781_5B4356C5_22642_217_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A47AE54BA@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20180709225252.GD59001@kduck.kaduk.org> <31682_1531226969_5B44AB59_31682_103_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A47AE73C4@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20180710141101.GP59001@kduck.kaduk.org> <bd0ffaf1-b0b2-3b9d-85a3-75a675c4c7bb@gmail.com> <20180726202715.GA91950@kduck.kaduk.org> <b3f73e73-32be-87d2-8b84-e7612aec0246@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <b3f73e73-32be-87d2-8b84-e7612aec0246@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrCKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nrnsqrCfaoHeblcXiNRIWNw5tYLL4 sWMOs8WmvVdZLGb8mchscWTyOhaL06t62S2OX/jN6MDhsXPWXXaPBZtKPZYs+cnk0fLsJFsA SxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXRs/uC2wFq7YzVjQcesrYwNjVwdjFyMkhIWAicf3pdJYuRi4OIYHF TBKHr81ghHA2MEpc3vmWBaRKSOAKk8TCo8EgNouAisTENc1gcTYgu6H7MjOILSKgK3Hp5Smw ZmaBRmaJ2d2HwYqEBcolVh2exw5i8wKte3h7NRPEhicsEneur2eESAhKnJz5BKyBWUBHYufW O2xdjBxAtrTE8n8cEGF5ieats8GWcQrYSjzfc5UNxBYVUJbY23eIfQKj4Cwkk2YhmTQLYdIs JJMWMLKsYpRNya3SzU3MzClOTdYtTk7My0st0jXSy80s0UtNKd3ECIoUTkneHYz/7nodYhTg YFTi4dXQ6YkWYk0sK67MPcQoycGkJMrrV9YZLcSXlJ9SmZFYnBFfVJqTWnyIUYKDWUmE90tq V7QQb0piZVVqUT5MSpqDRUmc1/Fca7SQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMVoaDQ0mCd0Uo0B7BotT01Iq0 zJwShDQTByfIcB6g4VUgNbzFBYm5xZnpEPlTjJYc845OncTM8ec9iNzXPW0SsxBLXn5eqpQ4 ryJIgwBIQ0ZpHtxMUOKTyN5f84pRHOhFYV4xYBoU4gEmTbipr4AWMgEtZLnaAbKwJBEhJdXA eO/R86xFxTtjU4wPdLr/qykV+3yuuCnNuN3c8ersDKGLceba1ax6Rs9ilvk6St4TWMaccyth U/2RK/cyHuZm3I2oNtq4Jd9Mx2zxvATnt+08Out0j76vt9i4W2HW1xUZ/1etqNrBnCAYOc80 rje++8Gj9V5mthm7dxX/c4n+3nnim2Alp6G3EktxRqKhFnNRcSIAjpRSH1cDAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vwoV_dGX8qbE066opf7OB8PWI1E>
Subject: Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <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: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 21:32:00 -0000
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:28:58PM -0700, Ahmed Bashandy wrote: > It seems like it was some editing error > > > I uploaded version 15 and oput back the parapgraph Thanks, but I think there is still an editing error, e.g., "Because this document recognizes that reachability, which presents a different risk profile." is not a complete sentence. (I assume this is an extra pasted line in the original source format, though the datatracker only shows .txt and .pdf so I can't check for myself.) -Benjamin > > Ahmed > > > > On 7/26/18 1:27 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Hi Ahmed, > > > > Thanks for posting the update (and sorry for only getting to it now). > > > > The two specific points I raised in my DISCUSS ballot are properly > > addressed, but before I go clear that I was hoping you could help me > > remember why the following text was removed when going from -13 to -14: > > > > [...] Because this document recognizes that > > miscofiguration and/or programming may result in false or conflicting > > label binding advertisements, thereby compromising traffic > > forwarding, the document recommends strict configuration/ > > programmability control as well as montoring the SID advertised and > > log/error messages by the operator to avoid or at least significantly > > minimize the possibility of such risk. > > > > I couldn't find anything in my email history that helped jog my memory. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Benjamin > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:10:37PM -0700, Ahmed Bashandy wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I just posted version 14 > >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-14.txt > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Ahmed > >> > >> > >> > >> On 7/10/18 7:11 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > >>> Hi Bruno, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the additional clarifications in the suggested text -- it looks > >>> good to me, so you and Ahmed should please go ahead with it (once > >>> submissions open up again). > >>> > >>> -Benjamin > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:49:28PM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote: > >>>> Hi Benjamin, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the discussion. > >>>> Please see inline [Bruno2] > >>>> > >>>>> From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu] > >>>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 12:53 AM > >>>> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 12:36:20PM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote: > >>>> > > Hi Benjamin, > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Thanks for your comments. > >>>> > > Please see inline another addition to Ahmed's answer. [Bruno] > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > From: Ahmed Bashandy [mailto:abashandy.ietf@gmail.com] > >>>> > > > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 2:30 AM > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > Hi > >>>> > > > Thanks for the review > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > See reply to the comment at #Ahmed > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > Ahmed > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > On 6/20/18 9:40 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > >>>> > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > >>>> > > > > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: Discuss > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > >>>> > > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > >>>> > > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > >>>> > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > >>>> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop/ > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > > > > DISCUSS: > >>>> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > I may be missing something, but I don't see anything that says whether the > >>>> > > > > preference field introduced in Section 3.2.3 uses larger values or smaller > >>>> > > > > values for more-preferred SRMSes. > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: > >>>> > > > If I understand this statement correctly, the concern is about which > >>>> > > > label(s) get assigned to which prefix(es). This concern is addressed as > >>>> > > > follows > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > From the MPLS architecture point of view, there is nothing wrong in > >>>> > > > having multiple labels for the same prefix. Segment routing in general > >>>> > > > and this document in particular did not introduce this behavior nor did > >>>> > > > they prohibit/restrict/relax it. For example, an implementation that > >>>> > > > allows the operator to locally assign multiple local labels to the same > >>>> > > > prefix may continue to apply this behavior whether the platform supports > >>>> > > > segment routing or not, in which case it is up to the implementation > >>>> > > > and/or the configuration affecting the MPLS forwarding plane to specify > >>>> > > > how to behave when multiple labels are assigned to the same prefix. Such > >>>> > > > behavior is a general MPLS behavior that outside the scope of and is not > >>>> > > > modified by segment routing. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > However the opposite, where the same label gets assigned to multiple > >>>> > > > prefixes resulting in label collision is problematic. This document > >>>> > > > prohibits label collision resulting from the use of SRMS (which is > >>>> > > > introduced by this document) in the first bullet starting at the 3rd > >>>> > > > line of page 12: > >>>> > > > "- If there is an incoming label collision as specified in > >>>> > > > [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] , apply the steps specified > >>>> > > > in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] to resolve the > >>>> > > > collision."" > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > The introduction of the SRMS is also introducing a new way for a protocol > >>>> > > > > participant to make claims about route prefixes directed at "third parties" > >>>> > > > > (non-MS, non-MC routers). While routing protocols in general do require high > >>>> > > > > levels of trust in all participants in order for proper routing to occur, this > >>>> > > > > addition seems to create a "first among equals" situation that could be called > >>>> > > > > out more clearly in the security considerations. (I do appreciate that the > >>>> > > > > requirement for preferring SIDs advertised in prefix reachability > >>>> > > > > advertisements over those advertised in mapping server advertisements does help > >>>> > > > > alleviate some of the risk.) > >>>> > > > >>>> > > [Bruno] > >>>> > > 1) As the SID attached to the prefix reachability is more preferred than the SID advertised by the > >>>> > SRMS, I would kind of argue that the SRMS is more "last among equals" :-) > >>>> > > 2) I agree that routing protocols, especially Link State Internal Routing Protocols, do require high > >>>> > levels of trusts among participants. In particular, please note that any node can already advertise > >>>> > any IP prefix (with any attached SID), and with any metric/cost, hence attracting the traffic. In this > >>>> > regards, I don't really see an increased risk in IGP routing. > >>>> > > >>>> > I don't really see an increased risk per se, either (since all routers can > >>>> > break routing in all sorts of ways), but I do see a new mechanism by which > >>>> > certain routers can cause routing breakage. So I was thinking "first among > >>>> > equals" in terms of "more ways to break things", not "can break things with > >>>> > a larger magnitude of breakage". You are right that the preference order > >>>> > that Ahmed described does mean that this new "mechanism for breakage" is > >>>> > only applicable when there are no explicit prefix-SID advertisements > >>>> > received via the IGP. So in that sense this new mechanism for breakage is > >>>> > "last among equals", as you say, because it can only take effect if the IGP > >>>> > leaves room for it. > >>>> > >>>> [Bruno2] Ack; I believe we are in sync. > >>>> > >>>> > > 3) I agree that SRMS allows for a "centralized" SID advertisement. I personally don't feel that this > >>>> > is more risky than a "centralized" BGP Route Reflector. However, I'm not against raising this in the > >>>> > security consideration section. > >>>> > > Please see below a proposed text. Please comment/propose text as required. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > OLD: > >>>> > > This document introduces another form of label binding > >>>> > > advertisements. The security associated with these advertisement is > >>>> > > part of the security applied to routing protocols such as IS-IS > >>>> > > [RFC5304] and OSPF [RFC5709] which both optionally make use of > >>>> > > cryptographic authentication mechanisms. This document also > >>>> > > specifies a mechanism by which the ill effects of advertising > >>>> > > conflicting label bindings can be mitigated. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > NEW: > >>>> > > This document introduces another form of label binding > >>>> > > advertisements. The security associated with these advertisements is > >>>> > > part of the security applied to routing protocols such as IS-IS > >>>> > > [RFC5304] and OSPF [RFC5709] which both optionally make use of > >>>> > > cryptographic authentication mechanisms. > >>>> > > This form of advertisement is more centralized, on behalf of the node advertising the IP > >>>> > reachability. > >>>> > > This document also > >>>> > > specifies a mechanism by which the ill effects of advertising > >>>> > > conflicting label bindings can be mitigated. In particular, advertisements from the node > >>>> > advertsising the IP reachability is more preference than the centralized one. > >>>> > > >>>> > I think that's enough to resolve my DISCUSS point. I would prefer if there > >>>> > was a little bit more text, such as "more centralized, on behalf of the > >>>> > node advertising the IP reachability, which presents a different risk > >>>> > profile than existing mechanisms for distributing label bindings", but your > >>>> > version does cover the key point. > >>>> > >>>> [Bruno2] ok. Proposed NEW2: > >>>> > >>>> This document introduces another form of label binding > >>>> advertisements. The security associated with these advertisements is > >>>> part of the security applied to routing protocols such as IS-IS > >>>> [RFC5304] and OSPF [RFC5709] which both optionally make use of > >>>> cryptographic authentication mechanisms. > >>>> This form of advertisement is more centralized, on behalf of the node advertising the IP reachability, which presents a different risk profile. > >>>> This document also > >>>> specifies a mechanism by which the ill effects of advertising > >>>> conflicting label bindings can be mitigated. In particular, advertisements from the node advertising the IP reachability is more preferred than the centralized one. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In short, I used your proposed text but removed " than existing mechanisms for distributing label bindings" as this could be read as "LDP". We could add more text to distinguish, but IMO the current text seems fine. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > (And to be clear, I am not trying to say > >>>> > that the centralized risk is better or worse in all cases; it's just > >>>> > different, so we should call that out to the reader and inform their decision > >>>> > making.) > >>>> > >>>> [Bruno2] In sync. I agree with you that we should call that out to the reader and inform their decision making. Thanks for bringing the comment. > >>>> I'll work with Ahmed, to have the draft reflect this, as he has the pen. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Bruno > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, > >>>> > > >>>> > Benjamin > >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Thanks, > >>>> > > --Bruno > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: > >>>> > > > If I understand your comment, the concern is about > >>>> > > > "first-come-first-serve" behavior. I believe this concern is addressed > >>>> > > > as follows > >>>> > > > (1) The sentence starting at the fourth line of the second paragraph in > >>>> > > > page 10 says: > >>>> > > > For a given prefix, if an MC receives an SR mapping advertisement > >>>> > > > from a mapping server and also has received a prefix-SID > >>>> > > > advertisement for that same prefix in a prefix reachability > >>>> > > > advertisement, then the MC MUST prefer the SID advertised in the > >>>> > > > prefix reachability advertisement over the mapping server > >>>> > > > advertisement i.e., the mapping server advertisment MUST be ignored > >>>> > > > for that prefix. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > (2) The last bullet at the bottom of page 11 says: > >>>> > > > - For any prefix for which it did not receive a prefix-SID > >>>> > > > advertisement, the MCC applies the SRMS mapping advertisments with > >>>> > > > the highest preference. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > (3) The first bullet near the top pf page 12 says: > >>>> > > > - If there is an incoming label collision as specified in > >>>> > > > [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] , apply the steps specified > >>>> > > > in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] to resolve the > >>>> > > > collision. > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > So for the same set of received advertisements (SRMS advertisements, > >>>> > > > prefix-SID advertisements, or combination of both), the same set of > >>>> > > > labels will be assigned to the same prefix. As mentioned in my previous > >>>> > > > comments, if multiple labels get assigned to the same prefix, the > >>>> > > > behavior is not related to segment routing > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > Regarding placing a comment in the security section, IMO a specification > >>>> > > > of which advertisement(s) to use when receiving multiple (conflicting or > >>>> > > > non-conflicting) advertisements has nothing to do with security. It is > >>>> > > > an externally visible protocol(s) behavior that should be specified in > >>>> > > > the sections covering the protocol(s) themselves rather than security > >>>> > > > consideration of the protocol(s). > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > But if you still think there is a need to mention something in the > >>>> > > > security section, a suggestion from your side will be greatly appreciated . > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > > > > COMMENT: > >>>> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > I support Alissa's suggestion about the text covering cryptographic authentication. > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: I modified the statement as Alissa suggested in version 14 that > >>>> > > > will be published in the next 1-2 days > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > "[100,300]" and "(100,200)" are each used as an example SRGB. In > >>>> > > > > some contexts the round versus square brackets indicate a > >>>> > > > > distinction between "closed" (includes endpoints) and "open" (does > >>>> > > > > not include endpoints) intervals. If there's no need to make such a > >>>> > > > > distinction, I suggest standardizing one one format. > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: I changed both of them to use [] in version because we mean > >>>> > > > inclusive > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > As was mentioned in the secdir review, it would be good to expand FEC and LFA on first > >>>> > usage. > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: Corrected in version 14 that will be published in the next 1-2 days > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Section 1 > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Section 2 describes the co-existence of SR with other MPLS Control > >>>> > > > > Plane. [...] > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > nit: "other MPLS Control Plane" seems to be an incomplete compound noun > >>>> > > > > -- is it other control plane technologies that are being considered? > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: I added "protocols" in version 14 to clarify that > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Section 2 > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Note that this static label allocation capability of the label > >>>> > > > > manager exists for many years across several vendors and hence is not > >>>> > > > > new. Furthermore, note that the label-manager ability to statically > >>>> > > > > allocate a range of labels to a specific application is not new > >>>> > > > > either. [...] > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > nits: "has existed", "label-manager's ability". > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: Corrected (thanks a lot) > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Section 2.1 > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > MPLS2MPLS refers the forwarding behavior where a router receives an > >>>> > > > > labeled packet and switches it out as a labeled packet. Several > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > nit: "refers to", "a labeled packet" > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: Corrected > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Section 3.2 > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > This section defines the Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS). The > >>>> > > > > SRMS is a IGP node advertising mapping between Segment Identifiers > >>>> > > > > (SID) and prefixes advertised by other IGP nodes. The SRMS uses a > >>>> > > > > dedicated IGP extension (IS-IS, OSPF and OSPFv3) which is protocol > >>>> > > > > specific and defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], > >>>> > > > > [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and > >>>> > > > > [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > nit: Perhaps "IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 are currently supported" is a > >>>> > > > > better parenthetical? > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: Corrected in the next version > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > The example diagram depicted in Figure 3 assumes that the operator > >>>> > > > > configures P5 to act as a Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) and > >>>> > > > > advertises the following mappings: (P7, 107), (P8, 108), (PE3, 103) > >>>> > > > > and (PE4, 104). > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > nit: I think this is Figure 2. > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: Corrected in the next version > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Section 3.2.1 > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > [...] Examples > >>>> > > > > of explicit prefix-SID advertisment are the prefix-SID sub-TLVs > >>>> > > > > defined in ([I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], > >>>> > > > > [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], and > >>>> > > > > [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]). > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Would draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid (also on this week's telechat) > >>>> > > > > be appropriate for inclusion in this list? > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > for that prefix. Hence assigning a prefix-SID to a prefix using the > >>>> > > > > SRMS functionality does not preclude assigning the same or different > >>>> > > > > prefix-SID(s) to the same prefix using explict prefix-SID > >>>> > > > > advertisement such as the aforementioned prefix-SID sub-TLV. > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: The SRMS functionality is specific to IGPs as mentioned in the > >>>> > > > second sentence of the second paragraph in Section 3.2 > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > nit: I think the aforementioned things were a list, so "sub-TLVs" plural > >>>> > > > > would be appropriate. > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Including the name for IS-IS TLV 135 might be helpful for the > >>>> > > > > reader. > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > #Ahmed: Corrected as suggested in the next version > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > ________________________________________________________________________________ > >>>> > _________________________________________ > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou > >>>> > privilegiees et ne doivent donc > >>>> > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par > >>>> > erreur, veuillez le signaler > >>>> > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant > >>>> > susceptibles d'alteration, > >>>> > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be > >>>> > protected by law; > >>>> > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > >>>> > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its > >>>> > attachments. > >>>> > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed > >>>> > or falsified. > >>>> > > Thank you. > >>>> > > > >>>> > >>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > >>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > >>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > >>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > >>>> > >>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > >>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > >>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > >>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > >>>> Thank you. > >>>> >
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-s… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… bruno.decraene
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk