Uma,
I agree.
I think we also explicitly stated this during our meeting in Toronto (from
the minutes):
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Uma: Needed to reference use cases in Hannes' draft.
Hannes: Perhaps what we could do is add some practical examples for
RSVP, BGP, and LDP LSPs binding. Not formal use cases.
Stefano: Would rather not go into applications in this ISIS draft.
Peter Psenak: Should go into a separate document that could be
referenced from both ISIS and OSPF.
Alia Atlas: There is a SPRING WG for such a document.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, note that:
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop
describe the use case of the SR Mapping Server that is implemented using
the Binding TLV.
As you suggested, Hannes drafts can be combined so to produce a use-case
document (in spring) for the Binding TLV RSVP-based use-cases.
s.
On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:55 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote:
> [CC’ed Spring WG]
>
> I agree with what Chris said below in principle. But all this should not be
> obviously part of ISIS/IGP extensions WG documents..
>
> Use cases for binding TLVs are explained in great details in 2 key documents
> (had to shuffle through to get here) –
>
> 1.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement-05
> 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gredler-spring-mpls-06
>
> IMO, both are very useful documents.
> It would be good to combine both of these and publish as a “spring ”
> document and eventually it should progress there.
> AFAICT, Both ISIS and OSPF should refer the same eventually to get more
> clarity and use of binding TLVs described currently.
>
> --
> Uma C.
>
> From: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:42 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Isis-wg] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
>
> All,
>
> The current text of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 does not
> clearly explain the usage of the Binding TLV for advertising LSPs created
> using other protocols. I would like to propose the following text to be
> included as section 2.5 .
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> ----------------
>
> 2.5 Binding TLV usage examples
>
> This section gives examples of using the Binding TLV to advertise SID/label
> bindings associated with RSVP-TE, LDP, and BGP labeled-unicast LSPs. It also
> includes an example of advertising a context-id for egress node protection.
> All of the examples assume that the Binding TLV weight=1 and metric=100.
>
> 2.5.1 Advertising an RSVP-TE LSP using the Binding TLV
>
> Assume that R1 has signaled an RSVP-TE LSP to egress router (R4) with
> router-id=10.4.4.4, with ER0 = (192.1.2.2 [strict], 192.2.3.2 [strict],
> 192.3.4.2 [strict]). R1 can advertise a locally significant label binding for
> this LSP (with label value=1099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in
> the Binding TLV.
>
> Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC
> prefix=10.4.4.4
> SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=1099
> ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100
> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.1.2.2
> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.2.3.2
> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=0, IPv4 address=192.3.4.2
>
> 2.5.2 Advertising an LDP LSP using the Binding TLV
>
> Assume that R5 has learned a FEC-label binding via LDP for FEC=10.8.8.8/32.
> R5 can advertise a locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label
> value=5099) using the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV.
>
> Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC
> prefix=10.8.8.8
> SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=5099
> ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100
> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.8.8.8
>
> 2.5.3 Advertising a BGP labeled-unicast LSP using the Binding TLV
>
> Assume that R9 has used BGP labeled-unicast to learn a label binding for
> prefix 10.15.15.15/32 with BGP next-hop=10.12.12.12. R9 can advertise a
> locally significant label binding for this LSP (with label value=7099) using
> the following values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV.
>
> Binding-TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=0, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC
> prefix=10.15.15.15
> SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=7099
> ERO Metric sub-TLV: metric=100
> IPv4 ERO sub-TLV: L-bit=1, IPv4 address=10.12.12.12
>
> 2.5.4 Advertising a context-id for egress node protection using the Binding
> TLV
>
> Assume that R22 is configured in the protector role to provide egress node
> protection for R21 using context-id=10.0.0.21. R22 can advertise the label
> associated with this context-id (with label value=8099) using the following
> values and sub-TLVs in the Binding TLV.
>
> Binding TLV: F-bit=0, M-bit=1, weight=1, range=1, prefix length=32, FEC
> prefix=10.0.0.21 SID/Label Sub-TLV: label=8099
>
> ----------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
