Stefano, Has the change suggested in this email been incorporated in the text of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing? Can you publish the current working version of the draft with the WG so that we can make sure that proposed textual changes and additions from the last several months have been incorporated?
Chris -----Original Message----- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 1:42 AM To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [spring] clarification of text in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 Hi Chris, > On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:04 PM, Chris Bowers <[email protected]> wrote: > > As far as I can tell, this request for clarification of the text in > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 has not been addressed. > > Thanks, > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [spring] clarification of text in > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 > > SPRING WG, > > The following paragraph in section 3.2.1 of > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 is confusing. > > 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. > > I interpret the first, third, and fourth sentences in this paragraph as > saying that an ingress node should make sure that transit nodes on a path > install transit forwarding entries for prefix-SIDs for a given algorithm by > looking that > the SR-Algorithm (sub)-TLV advertised by the transit nodes before sending > traffic on that path. > > However, the second sentence in the paragraph confuses this interpretation. > > "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." > > This sentence could be interpreted as saying that transit nodes must compute > all algorithms advertised by any node in the topology, even if the transit > node doesn't support the algorithm. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. > > A simple solution would be to delete this second sentence. I’d go for it. Thanks. s. > However, other clarifying text would be another solution. > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
