Thanks Alia – I’ve read through the comments and I think the authors should be able to address these in this draft or the LDP interoperation draft. Acee
From: OSPF <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 10:09 PM To: OSPF WG List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-18 As is customary, I have done another AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-18. I do appreciate the improvements in the draft. I do still see a few minor issues. I would like to see a revised draft before IETF Last Call. I expect to progress this at an IESG telechat with the primary spring documents, when Alvaro feels they are ready. 1) In Sec 3.1, "If the SR-Algorithm TLV appears in multiple Router Information LSAs that have different flooding scopes, the SR- Algorithm TLV in the Router Information LSA with the narrowest flooding scope SHOULD be used. " Given that the area-scope is REQUIRED - shouldn't this also prefer the area-scope? Is there future-proofing being done? 2) In Sec 3.4: "For the purpose of the SRMS Preference TLV advertisement, AS-scoped flooding is REQUIRED. This is because SRMS servers can be located in a different area then consumers of the SRMS advertisements. If the SRMS advertisements from the SRMS server are only used inside the SRMS server's area, area-scoped flooding may be used." REQUIRED is like MUST - I think you mean "AS-scoped flooded SHOULD be used.... area-scoped flooding MAY be used." 3) In Sec 4. "The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop], is an example where we need a single advertisement to advertise SIDs for multiple prefixes from a contiguous address range." I've read through the vastly improved section (thank you) in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-08 and I don't see any explanation for why a contiguous address range is needed. I can speculate that a primary purpose is to advertise SIDs for the loopback addresses of routers that don't support SR - and those loopback addresses are likely to be allocated from a contiguous range (though why some wouldn't be supporting SR and cause gaps isn't clear). 4) Sec 5: In the end of Sec 4.2 in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-08, it says "Note: SR mappings advertisements cannot set Penultimate Hop Popping. In the previous example, P6 requires the presence of the segment 103 such as to map it to the LDP label 1037. For that reason, the P flag available in the Prefix-SID is not available in the Remote-Binding SID." However, in this draft Sec 5 gives the following rules: "As the Mapping Server does not specify the originator of a prefix advertisement, it is not possible to determine PHP behavior solely based on the Mapping Server advertisement. However, PHP behavior SHOULD be done in following cases: The Prefix is intra-area type and the downstream neighbor is the originator of the prefix. The Prefix is inter-area type and downstream neighbor is an ABR, which is advertising prefix reachability and is also generating the Extended Prefix TLV with the A-flag set for this prefix as described in section 2.1 of [RFC7684]. The Prefix is external type and downstream neighbor is an ASBR, which is advertising prefix reachability and is also generating the Extended Prefix TLV with the A-flag set for this prefix as described in section 2.1 of [RFC7684]. These seem to be contradictory. 5) In Sec 7.1, it says "Multiple Mapping Servers can advertise Prefix-SIDs for the same prefix, in which case the same Prefix-SID MUST be advertised by all of them." What is forcing this constraint? Does it work if the Prefix-SID is an index into an SRGB or SRLB that is not the same value globally? I don't see it specified in Sec 7.2 of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-08? Regards, Alia
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
