Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Last Call for "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt
Hi Ketan, New version (11) should address all your comments, please check and let me know. ISIS version is being aligned as we speak. Many thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: Lsron behalf of "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 05:04 To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Last Call for "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF" - draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-10.txt Hi Acee, I have reviewed this draft for OSPF but in the same context also gone over its corresponding ISIS draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd/ ) and some of the comments apply to both since they are mostly identical in content. I need to ask the question if it makes sense to merge these drafts into a single one to save everyone cycles and ensure consistency in the spirit of LSR J General Qs: There are some differences between the ISIS and OSPF versions of this draft.. Could I request the authors to please cross-check and fix? The ISIS draft does not have some of the issues mentioned below. Do these TLVs apply only when the router is enabled for Segment Routing? i.e. they should be originated when SR is enabled on the router and the receiver should not expect them when SR is disabled? Or do we foresee MSD to be more generic. This aspect needs to be clarified. The allowable values are specified as 0-254 in OSPF draft while ISIS one allows 255 as well. The IANA section though says that 255 is reserved. The draft using “sub-type” in some places and “type” in some places.. This is confusing. The ISIS draft uses “type” everywhere which seems better. Several comments below about the section where OSPF TLVs are defined and I would suggest to use similar text as in the ISIS draft. I think it is better that the draft mandates that the MSD sub-types SHOULD be encoded in ascending order? This makes it easier for the receiver/consumer to detect absence or removal of a specific sub-type from signalling. Reference to RFC4970 should be replaced with RFC7770 Both the ISIS and OSPF drafts are asking IANA for creation of MSD type registry. Should the creation not be done by only one of them and the other points to it? Sec 1 can be imposed at each node/link on a given SR path It laso also defines the Base MPLS Imposition MSD type. Sec 1.1.1 BMI: Base MPLS Imposition is the number of MPLS labels that can be imposed inclusive of any all service/transport/special labels Sec 3 Node MSD is the minimum MSD supported by all the links of the node. Sub-Type 1 (IANA Section), MSD and the Value field contains maximum MSD of the router originating the RI LSA. Some Qs on Sec 3: In my understanding, the Node MSD is the minimum value of all the Link MSDs for the links on that node that are enabled in that specific IGP instance. There may be another IGP instance configured on the same node with a different set of links and for that instance, the Node MSD may be higher. The same goes for links that are not configured/enabled under the specific IGP instance. The draft needs to clarify this aspect. The draft needs to specify how many instances of this TLV are allowed in the RI LSA and when there are multiple instances in the same or multiple RI LSA fragments, then how should the receiver handle or interpret them? E.g. uses the minimum of the signalled Node MSD values or uses the first instance of the TLV in the lowest fragment, etc. Also, we don’t want multiple instances of the MSD TLV to be encoded for different types – all of them must be in a single instance of the MSD TLV. Sec 4 For OSPFv3, the Link level MSD value is advertised as an optional Sub-TLV of the Router-Link E-Router-LSA TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend], and has value of TBD3. Sub-Type 1 (IANA Section), MSD and the Value field contains Link MSD of the link router originating the corresponding LSA as specified for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Some Qs on Sec 4: The draft needs to specify how many instances of this TLV are allowed in the Extended Link Attribute/E-Router LSA and when there are multiple instances then how should the receiver handle or interpret them? Also, we don’t want multiple instances of the MSD TLV to be encoded for different types – all of them must be in a single instance of the MSD TLV. Sec 5 Suggest to add “When a Link MSD type is not signalled but the Node MSD type is, then the value of that Link MSD type MUST considered as the corresponding Node MSD type value.” I realize this is obvious but it is better to be clarified. This enables routes with homogenous link MSD values to advertise just the Node MSD values. I also think this should be RECOMMENDED by the draft for flooding efficiencies. Sec 6 The Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of
Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt
Hi Tal, New version (11) should address all your comments. Many thanks and please let me know, if there’s anything else. Cheers, Jeff From: Tal MizrahiDate: Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 04:08 To: , , Cc: , Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt Resent-From: Resent-To: Jeff Tantsura , , , Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 04:08:12 -0700 (PDT) + LSR mailing list. Cheers, Tal. On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd/ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd.txt Reviewer: Tal Mizrahi Review Date: April 2018 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has a couple of issues and a few nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. Comments: The Security Considerations should be more detailed. The reference to RFC 7770 is a good start, but please add more details about potential attacks. For example, what happens if there is a spoofed MSD with a low MSD value? What is the impact of such an attack? Section 3: The description of the Length field says “minimum of 2”, implying it can be higher than 2. On the other hand, the Value field: “consists of a 1 octet sub-type (IANA Registry) and 1 octet value.”, which implies that the Length is equal to 2. Please align the two descriptions, i.e., if flexibility for future sub-types is required, please change the description of Value to allow longer values.. The comment applies to Section 4 as well. Nits: The term “minimum MSD”, which translates to “minimum maximum SID Depth” should be explained. The term “maximum MSD” appears twice in the document, which seems either redundant, or a typo (did you mean minimum MSD?). The acronym SID should be spelled out on its first use. The acronyms RI and LSA should be added to the Terminology subsection. Section 1.1.1 and Section 2 are both titled “Terminology”. It would be best to merge Section 1.1 into Section 2, and avoid the duplicate title. “each node/link a given SR path” -> “each node/link of a given SR path” “nodes and links which has been configured” -> “nodes and links that have been configured” “laso”->”also” “Other Sub-types other than defined” -> “Sub-types other than defined” Cheers, Tal Mizrahi. ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr