ok, so my understanding is:
- have a standalone document which describes the usage of 'external'
protocols (LDP, BGP-LU, RSVP, stacked labels, egress protection)
and add it as a reference to all the SR one-the-wire protocol specs.
(OSPFv2, OSPFv3, IS-IS, BGP-LS).
agreed ?
/hannes
On 8/1/14 23:51, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
This is my preference for the protocol extension drafts.
Thanks,
Acee
On 8/1/14, 3:48 PM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[email protected]>
wrote:
my point is that description of use cases should be on a
separate document in order to avoid replication of text
between isis and ospf drafts.
Protocol extensions drafts should be focused on bits/bytes
to be carried by the protocol.
I think there's agreement on this.
s.
On Aug 1, 2014, at 8:57 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
I disagree. The proposed text contains four Binding TLV usage examples
which are not qualitatively different from the two usage examples
already included in section 2.4.3 of
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02. Additional usage
examples are needed to clarify how the TLVs and sub-TLVs defined in this
document should be used, without ambiguity.
As an example of the lack of clarity in the current text,
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 contains two different
sub-TLVs for specifying SID/Label values in the Binding TLV. The two
options are the SID/Label Sub-TLV (section 2.3) and the Prefix-SID
Sub-TLV (section 2.1). The current text does not clearly explain under
what circumstances the two different sub-TLVs should be used in the
Binding TLV. The proposed text makes the usage clear by means of
examples.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:54 AM
To: Uma Chunduri
Cc: Chris Bowers; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comment on
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02
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-0
5
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
_______________________________________________
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
