No. I don’t think that draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-09 represents the most up-to-date text.
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-09 was published on July 6th. The changes to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions proposed in the thread below were discussed in late July and August. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:04 AM To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; OSPF List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft Aren’t the text changes restricted to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing? Acee > On Sep 29, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Chris Bowers <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would like to see actual textual updates in the form of new revisions for > the clarifications that have been proposed for both > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions and > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing so that we know exactly what text we are > agreeing on. > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:50 AM > To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; OSPF > List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft > > Speaking as WG Co-Chair: > > Hi Chris, Les, Peter, > > So, is there anything preventing us from requesting publication of the > OSPFv2 Segment Routing draft? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On 8/25/16, 11:00 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Chris Bowers" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >> Les and Peter, >> >> I have also been pursuing the approach you suggest. >> >> The following request to clarify draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 >> on this topic was sent on Aug. 3rd. >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spring/current/msg02273.html >> >> Hopefully, we can get closure on these clarifications soon. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:32 AM >> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; Chris Bowers >> <[email protected]>; OSPF List <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >> >> Chris/Peter - >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak >>> (ppsenak) >>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:45 AM >>> To: Chris Bowers; OSPF List >>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> On 24/08/16 20:31 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>>> Peter, >>>> >>>> The text that you propose corresponds to part of the text that I >>>> proposed, >>> and it seems good to me. >>>> >>>> However, the last sentence of the text that I proposed in not >>> addressed. >>>> ------ >>>> If router B does not advertise the >>>> SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should not >>>> forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X >>>> advertised by some router D using a path that would require router >>>> B to forward traffic using algorithm X. >>>> ------ >>>> Is this an oversight? >>> >>> not that I disagree with the statement that you want to add. >>> >>> The question is whether that belongs to the IGP SR draft, or whether >>> that should be specified in a different draft. >>> >>> There is already some text regarding the forwarding for a SR >>> algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing section 3.2.1., which >>> may not be aligned with what you have in mind: >>> >>> "The ingress node of an SR domain validates that the path to a >>> prefix, >>> advertised with a given algorithm, includes nodes all supporting the >>> advertised algorithm. In other words, when computing paths for a >>> given algorithm, the transit nodes MUST compute the algorithm X on >>> the IGP topology, regardless of the support of the algorithm X by >>> the >>> nodes in that topology. As a consequence, if a node on the path >>> does >>> not support algorithm X, the IGP-Prefix segment will be interrupted >>> and will drop packet on that node. It's the responsibility of the >>> ingress node using a segment to check that all downstream nodes >>> support the algorithm of the segment." >>> >>> Maybe we should add/modify the text in >>> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing section 3.2.1, rather then adding >>> anything to the OSPF/ISIS SR drafts. >>> >> [Les:] I strongly agree with this approach. If one wants to >> understand how the MPLS dataplane works with SR then the following >> documents are >> relevant: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-05.txt >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop >> -0 >> 4.t >> xt >> >> References to these documents can be included in the IGP drafts - but >> we should not try to repurpose the IGP drafts to cover material which >> is covered far more completely in the above drafts. >> >> If you feel there is something which needs to be added/revised to any >> of the above drafts to more accurately explain algorithm specific >> forwarding please make the comment in the context of one of those drafts. >> >> Les >> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:32 AM >>>> To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; OSPF List <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>>> >>>> Chris, >>>> >>>> what about this to be added in the Section 3.1: >>>> >>>> >>>> "A router receiving a Prefix-SID (defined in section 5) from a >>>> remote node >>> and with an SR algorithm value that such remote node has not >>> advertised in the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV MUST ignore the Prefix-SID >>> sub-TLV." >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19/08/16 23:33 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>>>> Peter, >>>>> >>>>> Please share the updated text that you plan to use with the WG, >>>>> since this >>> is a reasonably significant clarification. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 10:02 AM >>>>> To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; OSPF List <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>>>> >>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>> >>>>> I'll update the draft along those lines. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 16/08/16 16:02 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>>>>> Peter, >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest changing the paragraph to read as below to make this >>> clearer. >>>>>> >>>>>> ===== >>>>>> The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional. It MAY only be >>> advertised once >>>>>> in the Router Information Opaque LSA. If the SID/Label >>>>>> Range >>> TLV, as >>>>>> defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the SR-Algorithm >>> TLV MUST >>>>>> also be advertised. If a router C advertises a Prefix-SID >>>>>> sub-TLV for >>> algorithm X >>>>>> but does not advertise the SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV with >>>>>> algorithm X, >>> then >>>>>> a router receiving that advertisement MUST ignore the >>> Prefix-SID >>>>>> advertisement from router C. If router B does not advertise >>> the >>>>>> SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, then other routers should >>> not >>>>>> forward traffic destined for a prefix-SID for algorithm X >>> advertised by >>>>>> some router D using a path that would require router B to >>>>>> forward >>> traffic using >>>>>> algorithm X. >>>>>> ===== >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:40 AM >>>>>> To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; OSPF List <[email protected]> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>>> >>>>>> sorry for the delay, I was on PTO during last two weeks. >>>>>> Please see inline: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/08/16 16:45 , Chris Bowers wrote: >>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Taking a looking at the whole paragraph into this sentence was >>>>>>> added, I am not sure how to interpret it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional. It MAY only be >>>>>>> advertised >>> once >>>>>>> in the Router Information Opaque LSA. If the SID/Label >>>>>>> Range TLV, >>> as >>>>>>> defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the >>>>>>> SR-Algorithm TLV >>> MUST >>>>>>> also be advertised. If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not >>> advertised by the >>>>>>> node, such node is considered as not being segment routing >>> capable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this sentence intended to imply that if a router does not >>>>>>> advertise the SR-Algorithm TLV including algorithm X, then any >>>>>>> prefix-SIDs for algorithm X advertised by that router will be >>>>>>> ignored by >>> other routers? >>>>>> >>>>>> in OSPF we do not have the SR capability TLV. We use SR-Algorithm >>>>>> TLV for that purpose. So if a router does not advertise the >>>>>> SR-Algorithm TLV for algorithm X, other routers should not send >>>>>> any SR traffic using SIDs that were advertised for algorithm X. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the router does not advertise any SR Algorithm TLV, then the >>>>>> node is not SR capable and no SR traffic should be forwarded to >>> such a node. >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks, >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If this is the intention, then it would be better to state is >>>>>>> more >>> explicitly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If not, then the intended meaning should be clarified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter >>>>>>> Psenak >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 3:30 AM >>>>>>> To: OSPF List <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPFv2 SR draft >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> following text has been added in the latest revision of the >>>>>>> OSPFv2 SR draft, section 3.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not advertised by node, such node is >>>>>>> considered as not being segment routing capable." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let us know if there are any concerns regarding this >>> addition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
