Hi, Mustapha,

Yes, that would need a Std Track RFC: 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/#protocol-segment-id-sub-tlv

Thanks,

Carlos.

On Sep 12, 2019, at 2:42 PM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) 
<mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com<mailto:mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com>> wrote:

 Carlos,
How do we go about it? Is this an addendum to the RFC?

Mustapha.
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 11, 2019, at 6:32 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) 
<cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote:

+1. We should have different codepoints for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.

I recall we actually planned to do that not too long ago, but I cannot find the 
draft on which we split the codepoint.

From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" 
<mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com<mailto:mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com>>
Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 2:31 AM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ket...@cisco.com<mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>, 
"bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>" 
<bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>, 
"m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>" <m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>>, 
"draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org>"
 
<draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org>>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>" 
<spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: Codepoint for OSPFv3 protocol in SPRING LSP-Ping and LSP-Trace
Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>>
Resent-To: <naiku...@cisco.com<mailto:naiku...@cisco.com>>, 
<cpign...@cisco.com<mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>>, 
<swallow.i...@gmail.com<mailto:swallow.i...@gmail.com>>, 
<nobo.akiya....@gmail.com<mailto:nobo.akiya....@gmail.com>>, 
<sriganeshk...@gmail.com<mailto:sriganeshk...@gmail.com>>, 
<mach.c...@huawei.com<mailto:mach.c...@huawei.com>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 2:31 AM

Thank you Ketan.

I believe it would be appropriate to have a separate codepoint for each OSPFv2 
and OSPFv3 protocols. Within OSPFv3 we can distinguish the family IPv4 and IPv6 
based on the prefix of the SID.

Mustapha.

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ket...@cisco.com<mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:21 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>; Aissaoui, 
Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) 
<mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com<mailto:mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com>>; 
m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>; 
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org>
Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Codepoint for OSPFv3 protocol in SPRING LSP-Ping and LSP-Trace

Hi Mustapha,

The RFC8287 refers to OSPF and not OSPFv2. Conventionally, we use the term OSPF 
when we are referring to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. I am not sure if this was the 
authors’ objective.

One might assume that OSPFv2 is purely for IPv4 and OSPFv3 for IPv6, but this 
is not true (see RFC5838).

I would it is better to have two separate code-points for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 in 
this case.

Thanks,
Ketan

From: mpls <mpls-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>
Sent: 09 September 2019 18:23
To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) 
<mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com<mailto:mustapha.aissa...@nokia.com>>; 
m...@ietf.org<mailto:m...@ietf.org>; 
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org>
Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Codepoint for OSPFv3 protocol in SPRING LSP-Ping and 
LSP-Trace

RFC 8287 is a product of the MPLS WG so in the absence of answer on the SPRING 
mailing list, I’m redirecting the question to the MPLS WG.

--Bruno

From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui, Mustapha 
(Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 12:29 AM
To: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] Codepoint for OSPFv3 protocol in SPRING LSP-Ping and LSP-Trace

Dear all,
I am not sure if this was discussed during the development of RFC 8287 – “Label 
Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs)                         with MPLS Data 
Planes”, but I could not find anything in the SPRING mail archive.

Prefix SID and adjacency SID which are originated in an OSPFv3 instance (IPv4 
or IPv6 instance) do not have a protocol ID assigned to them in the Segment ID 
Sub-TLV, as well as in the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed 
Mapping TLV.

Should we assign the next available IANA codepoint values or was there a 
rationale for omitting them?

Regards,
Mustapha.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

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

Reply via email to