Hi Acee,
It was my mistake referring old draft, current draft are
consistent. Both OSPF extension and SR Architecture draft use L-Flag.
Apart from this other comments are valid I support , yet to
hear from authors.
Thanks & Regards
Anil S N
“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send” - Jon Postel
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: 22 September 2015 16:38
To: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Peter Psenak (ppsenak); Stefano Previdi
(sprevidi); Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil); han...@juniper.net;
rob.sha...@bt.com; wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com; Jeff Tantsura;
draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05....@ietf.org
Cc: OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05
Hi Anil,
Since the setting of the flag being set indicates that the SID is local, L-Flag
seems like a more appropriate moniker for this OSPF protocol flag. Calling it
the G flag will only result in confusion.
Thanks,
Acee
From: OSPF <ospf-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of
"Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)"
<anil...@huawei.com<mailto:anil...@huawei.com>>
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 2:43 AM
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>,
"Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprev...@cisco.com<mailto:sprev...@cisco.com>>,
"Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <cfils...@cisco.com<mailto:cfils...@cisco.com>>,
"han...@juniper.net<mailto:han...@juniper.net>"
<han...@juniper.net<mailto:han...@juniper.net>>,
"rob.sha...@bt.com<mailto:rob.sha...@bt.com>"
<rob.sha...@bt.com<mailto:rob.sha...@bt.com>>, Wim Henderickx
<wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>>,
Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tants...@ericsson.com<mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com>>,
"draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05....@ietf.org<mailto:draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05....@ietf.org>"
<draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05....@ietf.org<mailto:draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05....@ietf.org>>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05
Hi Authors,
In Section : 24.2. Prefix SID Sub-TLV, L-Flag represent IGP segment is local
or global (Suggest to change to G so that it will be consistent with Segment
Routing Architecture draft) similar to that can we have A-Flag to indicate
Anycast SID.
The L-Flag: Local/Global Flag. If set, then the value/index
carried by the PrefixSID has local significance. If not set,
then the value/index carried by this subTLV has global
significance.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00#page-17
3.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00#section-3.2>.
IGP Segment Terminology
3.2.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00#section-3.2.1>.
IGP Segment, IGP SID
The terms "IGP Segment" and "IGP SID" are the generic names for a
segment attached to a piece of information advertised by a link-state
IGP, e.g. an IGP prefix or an IGP adjacency.
The IGP signaling extension to advertise an IGP segment includes the
G-Flag indicating whether the IGP segment is global or local.
IGP-SID
+--+--+
/ | \
Prefix-SID x Adj-SID
+----+---+
/ | \
Node-SID y Anycast-SID
Figure 7: IGP SID Terminology
The IGP Segment terminology is introduced to ease the documentation
of SR use-cases and hence does not propose a name for any possible
variation of IGP segment supported by the architecture. For example,
y in Figure 7 could represent a local IGP segment attached to an IGP
Prefix. This variation, while supported by the SR architecture is
not seen in the SR use-cases and hence does not receive a specific
name.
Thanks & Regards
Anil S N
“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send” - Jon Postel
From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
Sent: 21 September 2015 20:00
To: 'Peter Psenak'; 'sprev...@cisco.com<mailto:'sprev...@cisco.com>';
'cfils...@cisco.com<mailto:'cfils...@cisco.com>';
'han...@juniper.net<mailto:'han...@juniper.net>';
'rob.sha...@bt.com<mailto:'rob.sha...@bt.com>';
'wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:'wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>';
Jeff Tantsura
Cc: OSPF WG List
Subject: draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05
Hi Authors,
In Segment Routing Architecture draft, There is a provision to allocate
multiple Adj-SIDs to same adjacency in case of bundle interface.
In IGP extension draft we need to have one more Adj-SID Sub-TLV type to
distribute SID’s for bundle members with bundle member ID along with link
type/data & ID.
Please let me know your opinion.
Reference :
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-05
3.5. IGP-Adjacency Segment, Adj-SID
A node MAY allocate multiple Adj-SIDs to the same adjacency. An
example is where the adjacency is established over a bundle
interface. Each bundle member MAY have its own Adj-SID.
Thanks & Regards
Anil S N
“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send” - Jon Postel
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
