Hi Stephane,
I agree with you.
I also noticed that in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls we should have
(probably) a better description on how to use SRGB and indexes.
I propose to update draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls so that the
conflict-resolution draft can point to it when referring to SRGB/index
procedures.
s.
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 9:46 AM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Les,
>
> IMO, “treat the sending node as NOT SR-MPLS capable for globally scoped SIDs”
> may lead to confusion and let think that only Adj-SID can be used.
> “NOT SR-MPLS capable” is really strong, and may prevent the PHP case Bruno
> was describing.
> May be we can add a sentence to precise what the statement means like : “This
> means that the sending node is not able to process MPLS labels mapped to
> globally scope SIDs.”.
>
>
> Stephane
>
>
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)
> Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 01:13
> To: Uma Chunduri; DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Uma –
>
> It is true that the neighbor of the dysfunctional node cannot install
> outgoing labels for paths via the dysfunctional node. That is precisely the
> meaning of “treat the sending node as NOT SR-MPLS capable for globally scoped
> SIDs”.
>
> This does not mean that “global SID advertisements should be ignored”. And I
> do not see that it could in any way be interpreted to imply that.
>
> Please hit the “reset button” and try looking at this with a fresh
> perspective. J
>
>Les
>
>
> From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 3:56 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Les,
>
> In-line [Uma]:
>
> --
> Uma C.
>
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 12:22 PM
> To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Uma –
>
> I have no idea how you translate:
>
> Receivers of an invalid SRGB MUST ignore the SRGB and treat the sending node
> as NOT SR-MPLS capable for globally scoped SIDs.
>
> into
>
> Should not consider any global SIDs, because the advertised global SIDs are
> not trustworthy any more
>
> SRGB defines the node-local label space which has been reserved for use by SR
> on that node.
> [Uma]: …and also the upstream neighboring node to compute and install the
> outgoing label J.
>
> Global SIDs define the index which is to be used into the node specific SRGBs
> to map the index into the correct node-specific label.
> [Uma]: ..of both advertising node’s own SRGB locally and the SRGB of computed
> shortest path neighbor.
>
> While I will do my best to make the language in the draft clear and
> unambiguous,
>
> [Uma]: thx!
>
> I am frankly at a loss to understand how you concluded that the SRGB related
> statement says anything whatsoever about SID advertisements.
> [Uma]: because of this
> “sending node as NOT SR-MPLS capable for globally scoped SIDs”
> hence the conclusion of not using the global SIDs!!
>
>
>Les
>
>
> From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:13 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Les,
>
> Thanks. My quick response below [Uma2]:
>
> --
> Uma C.
>
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:28 PM
> To: Uma Chunduri; bruno.decra...@orange.com
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Uma –
>
> Thanx for the response.
> Inline.
>
> From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chund...@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:34 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); bruno.decra...@orange.com
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
> INCONSISTENCY
>
> Dear Les, Bruno,
>
> Thanks for a great discussion on this sticky issue.
>
> Couple of things:
>
> 1. Les, I support advertising explicit SR capability of the node;
> meaning this doesn’t have to be tied to one or more SRGB range
> advertisements.
> Though for example, OSPF draft doesn’t say anything about ‘no srgb ranges’ in
> SID/Label Range TLV, my vote is to be explicit about it.
> I also agree to change IS-IS document to change and to align to the
