Thanks Peter for the clarification. Thanks & Regards, Veerendranath
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 5:32 PM To: Veerendranatha Reddy V <veerendranatha.redd...@ericsson.com>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665 Hi Veerendranatha, On 19/08/2020 11:48, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote: > Hi Peter, > Thanks for the reply. > As per the discussion, my understanding is Range TLV defined mainly be used > for SRMS entries (to get entries from LDP , for LDP Interoperability). > The use case mentioned is different from SRMS (redistribution across IGP > protocols) , Range TLV is not applicable to use in that use case? no. At this point, Range TLV is defined only for SRMS mapping advertisement. thanks, Peter > > Thanks & Regards, > Veerendranath > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 3:04 PM > To: Veerendranatha Reddy V <veerendranatha.redd...@ericsson.com>; > lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for > External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665 > > Veerendranatha, > > On 19/08/2020 11:19, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> Thanks for the reply. >> For OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV (defined in RFC 7684) has route type and it >> supports NSSA External Prefixes to carry SID information. >> In the same way, if Range TLV has Route-Type , we can extend to support for >> NSSA ASBR to send Range TLVs for redistributed prefixes. > > no. NSSA route type is used for redistribution of prefixes to NSSA areas. > There is no such thing as redistribution of SRMS entries. So using NSSA type > with SRMS advertisement is not valid. > > Peter > > > > >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Veerendranath >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:39 PM >> To: Veerendranatha Reddy V <veerendranatha.redd...@ericsson.com>; >> lsr@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage for >> External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665 >> >> Veerendranath, >> >> On 19/08/2020 10:03, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote: >>> Hi Peter, >>> It is not related to SRMS. >>> If there exist ISIS/OSPF or two instances of OSPF in same device, and all >>> are supporting ST, then I can redistribute SR Prefix information to OSPF >>> from other OSPF instance or from ISIS. >> >> yes, you can. >> >>> In this case, I may use range TLV to reduce the number of Prefix TLVs, by >>> using Range TLV, if prefixes and SID are able to convert to Range TLV. >> >> you would have to generate one somewhere (on ABR?), but it would not be of >> NSSA type. >> >> Peter >> >> >>> >>> Thanks & Regards, >>> Veerendranath >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:23 PM >>> To: Veerendranatha Reddy V <veerendranatha.redd...@ericsson.com>; >>> lsr@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage >>> for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665 >>> >>> Hi Veerendranatha, >>> >>> On 19/08/2020 06:23, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote: >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> While redistributing prefix Sid for the prefixes from other protocols (Ex: >>>> from ISIS or other OSPF instances), we can consider as range TLV for the >>>> prefixes which are advertised in the range TLV in that protocol. >>> >>> I don't follow. Are you talking about redistribution of SRMS advertisement >>> between protocols? Such thing has not been defined. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>>> If it is NSSA, then we need to advertise these redistributed prefixes as >>>> area scope, so Range TLV also need to be part of area scope Opaque LSA. >>>> >>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>> Veerendranath >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 11:06 PM >>>> To: Veerendranatha Reddy V <veerendranatha.redd...@ericsson.com>; >>>> lsr@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV usage >>>> for External/NSSA prefixes defined in RFC 8665 >>>> >>>> Veerendranath, >>>> >>>> On 18/08/2020 16:40, Veerendranatha Reddy V wrote: >>>>> Hi Authors, All, >>>>> >>>>> OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV defined in RFC 8665 has IA flag to >>>>> distinguish between Intra and Inter Area scope prefixes. >>>>> >>>>> Whether any restrictions to not to use Prefix Range TLV for >>>>> external/NSSA prefixes ? >>>> >>>> I don't see how you can use OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV for NSSA, the >>>> usage of OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV has only been defined in the >>>> context of RFC 8665. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For External Prefixes, we can able to use Prefix Range TLV by >>>>> using LSA type (based on AS scope Opaque Type , so the TLV is for >>>>> External >>>>> Prefixes) >>>>> >>>>> But If we need to use the Prefix Range TLV for NSSA prefixes >>>>> (Type-7) , which are in area scope, there is no flag/route-type >>>>> field in this TLV to distinguish between Intra or NSSA prefixes( >>>>> as IA flag will not be set anyway). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Veerendranath >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
