Gunter,
I have nothing to add to Les' comments, 100% agree.
Cheers,
Jeff
On 6/13/18, 08:42, "Idr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
<idr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Gunter -
I strongly support Option #2 and strongly support Ketan's recommendation
that an MSD sub-type be used to advertise ERLD.
This is the unified framework that the MSD advertisement has been designed
to support.
The following documents provide a unified definition of this mechanism:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd/
(The last one needs a refresh.)
If we can update the related ERLD documents to align I think we will have
an excellent solution.
(Note: in the case of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld/
perhaps that can be combined with
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd/ -
but I leave that to the respective authors to work out.)
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia
> - BE/Antwerp)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:10 AM
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>; i...@ietf.org;
l...@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Signalling ERLD (ISIS, OSPF and BGP-LS)
>
> It is desirable that same understanding of TLVs ([ELC, RLD] or [ERLD]) are
> signaled for ISIS, OSPF and BGP-LS.
>
> If the WG's can manage to agree upon a decision (option1/2/3 or 4), then
> next, have a look into how to encode the TLV so that we have a clean
> technological solution space.
>
> G/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 10:45
> To: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; i...@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Signalling ERLD (ISIS, OSPF and BGP-LS)
>
> Hi Gunter,
>
> In that case, I concur with you that option (2) is better than the
others. My
> only difference in opinion is that ERLD not have its own separate TLV but
> instead get advertised as a new MSD sub-type - it is just a different
encoding.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>
> Sent: 13 June 2018 13:55
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com>; i...@ietf.org;
l...@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Signalling ERLD (ISIS, OSPF and BGP-LS)
>
> Indeed, the debate that made BGP-LS to go down the ERLD path is of
> pragmatic motivation.
>
> The major Readable Label Depth use-case is entropy. Hence, if the ERLD TLV
> is available, then ELC can be implicitly assumed. No pragmatic reason to
signal
> separately, as it just make things more complex then should be.
>
> >From a holistic perspective having something similar, yet different, in
both
> IGP and BGP-LS encoding seems to make little sense and only bring
> confusion (router/controller implementers and network operators).
>
> The ways to address this in IGP and BGP-LS going forward:
> 1) do nothing and leave all as it is (it has potential to create massive
> confusion)
> 2) only signal ERLD TLV in IGP and BGP
> 3) signal ELC TLV and RLD TLV (unclear pragmatic value of explicit
signaling of
> ELC TLV compared to option (2))
> 4) signal ELC TLV, RLD TLV and ERLD TLV (it has all, but is much much more
> complex as option (2))
>
> I believe that option (2) is the best option:
> * it bring the needed readable label depth value to operators
> * most simple solution for implementers (routers and controller)
> * easy to understand with no confusion
> * is compliant with draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-10
>
> G/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 08:05
> To: Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; i...@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Signalling ERLD (ISIS, OSPF and BGP-LS)
>
> Hi Gunter,
>
> The difference in IGP signalling seems to be because the ELC is a
capability
> which is advertised differently than ERLD which is a limit. Are you
saying that
> ELC does not have value by itself without the ERLD?
>
> IMHO it makes sense to retain ELC as capability of the router (as
specified in
> the IGP specs) and position ERLD as a MSD sub-type for indicating the
limit.
> This way we have the flexibility of signalling ERLD both per node and per
> ingress link/LC level.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <idr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia
> - BE/Antwerp)
> Sent: 12 June 2018 19:28
> To: i...@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org
> Subject: [Idr] Signalling ERLD (ISIS, OSPF and BGP-LS)
>
> In LSR WG the following drafts document the signaling of ELC and RLD:
> * draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc
> * draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc
>
> When exporting this information using BGP-LS encoding to a controller,
there
> is need for BGP-LS extension by means of new TLVs.
>
> BGP-LS is signaling ERLD (entropy capable readable label depth) ISIS/OSPF
is
> signaling individually ELC and RLD
>
> I was working upon the IANA section, and discovered some inconsistency
> that should be addressed:
> * Why is IGP signaling individual ELC and RLD? ERLD is what was decided
upon
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-10)
> * What are the plans to request IANA code points for these drafts?
> * (E)RLD seems to have meaning only from NODE perspective, (I assume that
> LINK ERLD is not of any value at all, is that a correct assumption?)
>
> G/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-
> dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 15:25
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: i...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Idr] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-02.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Signalling ERLD using BGP-LS
> Authors : Gunter Van de Velde
> Wim Henderickx
> Matthew Bocci
> Keyur Patel
> Filename : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-02.txt
> Pages : 6
> Date : 2018-06-12
>
> Abstract:
> This document defines the attribute encoding to use for BGP-LS to
> expose ERLD "Entropy capable Readable Label Depth" from a node to a
> centralised controller (PCE/SDN).
>
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-02
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-
> rld-02
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-
> 02
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> i...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> i...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> l...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
i...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
