Re: [spring] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

[Peter Psenak]

Hi,

I would like to get some feedback on the usage of the SID/Label Binding TLV.

Is there any implementation that uses SID/Label Binding TLV for 
advertising the SID/Label binding to a FEC as specified in section 6 of 
the draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16 or section 2.4 of 
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-12?


If not, do we see this as something we want to preserve in the IGP SR 
drafts?


ISIS uses The SID/Label Binding TLV to advertise
prefixes to SID/Label mappings, which is known to be supported by 
several implementations and that piece needs to be preserved.


thanks,
Peter

On 09/06/17 19:04 , Peter Psenak wrote:

Acee,

my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label
Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for
SRMS advertisement like in ISIS.

thanks,
Peter



On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem >
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
To: OSPF WG List >,
"spring@ietf.org " >, "i...@ietf.org "
>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org
"
>
Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also
effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)

Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,

As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO
extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are
not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As
document shepherd,  my proposal is that they simply be removed since
they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that
no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also
deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV
registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or
indefinitely ;^).

Thanks,
Acee



.



___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

[Peter Psenak]

Acee,

my question is whether we need the whole section 6 and the SID/Label 
Binding Sub-TLV that it specifies. In OSPF Binding SID is not used for 
SRMS advertisement like in ISIS.


thanks,
Peter



On 09/06/17 16:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem >
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
To: OSPF WG List >,
"spring@ietf.org " >, "i...@ietf.org "
>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org
"
>
Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also
effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS)

Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,

As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO
extensions in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are
not specified as far as usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As
document shepherd,  my proposal is that they simply be removed since
they were incorporated as part of a draft merge and it appears that
no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could also
deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV
registry to delay usage of these code points for some time (or
indefinitely ;^).

Thanks,
Acee



___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Corrected IS-IS WG alias – Please reply to this one.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem >
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM
To: OSPF WG List >, 
"spring@ietf.org" 
>, 
"i...@ietf.org" >
Cc: 
"draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org"
 
>
Subject: OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect 
OSPFv3 and IS-IS)

Hi OSPF, ISIS, and SPRING WGs,

As part of the Alia’s AD review, she uncovered the fact that the ERO extensions 
in 6.1 and 6.2 are specified as far as encoding but are not specified as far as 
usage in any IGP or SPRING document. As document shepherd,  my proposal is that 
they simply be removed since they were incorporated as part of a draft merge 
and it appears that no one has implemented them (other than parsing). We could 
also deprecate types (4-8) in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV registry 
to delay usage of these code points for some time (or indefinitely ;^).

Thanks,
Acee
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring