Multiple use cases documents. Draft-filsfils-segment-routing-use-cases being one.
s. Sent from mobile -----Original Message----- From: Hannes Gredler [[email protected]] Received: Monday August 4, 2014, 08:55 To: Acee Lindem (acee) [[email protected]]; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [[email protected]]; Chris Bowers [[email protected]] CC: [email protected] [[email protected]]; [email protected] [[email protected]] Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [spring] comment on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02 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
