Peter, The text that you propose corresponds to part of the text that I proposed, and it seems good to me.
However, the last sentence of the text that I proposed in not addressed. ------ If router B does not advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should not forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X advertised by some router D using a path that would require router B to forward traffic using algorithm X. ------ Is this an oversight? Thanks, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:32 AM To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; OSPF List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Chris, what about this to be added in the Section 3.1: "A router receiving a Prefix-SID (defined in section 5) from a remote node and with an SR algorithm value that such remote node has not advertised in the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV MUST ignore the Prefix-SID sub-TLV." thanks, Peter On 19/08/16 23:33 , Chris Bowers wrote: > Peter, > > Please share the updated text that you plan to use with the WG, since this is > a reasonably significant clarification. > > Thanks, > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 10:02 AM > To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; OSPF List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft > > Hi Chris, > > I'll update the draft along those lines. > > thanks, > Peter > > > On 16/08/16 16:02 , Chris Bowers wrote: >> Peter, >> >> I suggest changing the paragraph to read as below to make this clearer. >> >> ===== >> The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional. It MAY only be advertised once >> in the Router Information Opaque LSA. If the SID/Label Range TLV, as >> defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the SR-Algorithm TLV MUST >> also be advertised. If a router C advertises a Prefix-SID sub-TLV for >> algorithm X >> but does not advertise the SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV with algorithm X, then >> a router receiving that advertisement MUST ignore the Prefix-SID >> advertisement from router C. If router B does not advertise the >> SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should not >> forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X advertised by >> some router D using a path that would require router B to forward >> traffic using >> algorithm X. >> ===== >> >> Thanks, >> Chris >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:40 AM >> To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; OSPF List <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> sorry for the delay, I was on PTO during last two weeks. >> Please see inline: >> >> On 03/08/16 16:45 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>> Peter, >>> >>> Taking a looking at the whole paragraph into this sentence was >>> added, I am not sure how to interpret it. >>> >>> The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional. It MAY only be advertised once >>> in the Router Information Opaque LSA. If the SID/Label Range TLV, as >>> defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the SR-Algorithm TLV MUST >>> also be advertised. If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by the >>> node, such node is considered as not being segment routing capable. >>> >>> Is this sentence intended to imply that if a router does not >>> advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV including algorithm X, then any >>> prefix-SIDs for algorithm X advertised by that router will be ignored by >>> other routers? >> >> in OSPF we do not have the SR capability TLV. We use SR-Algorithm TLV >> for that purpose. So if a router does not advertise the SR-Algorithm >> TLV for algorithm X, other routers should not send any SR traffic >> using SIDs that were advertised for algorithm X. >> >> If the router does not advertise any SR Algorithm TLV, then the node >> is not SR capable and no SR traffic should be forwarded to such a node. >> >> thanks, >> Peter >> >> >>> >>> If this is the intention, then it would be better to state is more >>> explicitly. >>> >>> If not, then the intended meaning should be clarified. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak >>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 3:30 AM >>> To: OSPF List <[email protected]> >>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> following text has been added in the latest revision of the OSPFv2 >>> SR draft, section 3.1. >>> >>> "If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by node, such node is >>> considered as not being segment routing capable." >>> >>> Please let us know if there are any concerns regarding this addition. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> . >>> >> >> . >> > > . > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
