draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-14.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 18 skipping to change at page 1, line 18
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
R. Shakir R. Shakir
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Individual Individual
May 4, 2017 May 4, 2017
OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-13 draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-14
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths
within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological
sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the
link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This draft describes the OSPF extensions required for Segment This draft describes the OSPF extensions required for Segment
Routing. Routing.
skipping to change at page 15, line 43 skipping to change at page 15, line 43
Router-D: 192.0.2.4/32, Prefix-SID: Index 4 Router-D: 192.0.2.4/32, Prefix-SID: Index 4
then the Prefix field in the Extended Prefix Range TLV would be set then the Prefix field in the Extended Prefix Range TLV would be set
to 192.0.2.1, Prefix Length would be set to 32, Range Size would be to 192.0.2.1, Prefix Length would be set to 32, Range Size would be
set to 4, and the Index value in the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV would be set set to 4, and the Index value in the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV would be set
to 1. to 1.
Example 2: If the following prefixes need to be mapped into the Example 2: If the following prefixes need to be mapped into the
corresponding Prefix-SID indexes: corresponding Prefix-SID indexes:
10.1.1/24, Prefix-SID: Index 51 192.0.2.0/30, Prefix-SID: Index 51
10.1.2/24, Prefix-SID: Index 52 192.0.2.4/30, Prefix-SID: Index 52
10.1.3/24, Prefix-SID: Index 53 192.0.2.8/30, Prefix-SID: Index 53
10.1.4/24, Prefix-SID: Index 54 192.0.2.12/30, Prefix-SID: Index 54
10.1.5/24, Prefix-SID: Index 55 192.0.2.16/30, Prefix-SID: Index 55
10.1.6/24, Prefix-SID: Index 56 192.0.2.20/30, Prefix-SID: Index 56
10.1.7/24, Prefix-SID: Index 57 192.0.2.24/30, Prefix-SID: Index 57
then the Prefix field in the Extended Prefix Range TLV would be set then the Prefix field in the Extended Prefix Range TLV would be set
to 10.1.1.0, Prefix Length would be set to 24, Range Size would be 7, to 192.0.2.0, Prefix Length would be set to 30, Range Size would be
and the Index value in the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV would be set to 51. 7, and the Index value in the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV would be set to 51.
6. SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV 6. SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV
The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV is used to advertise a SID/Label The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV is used to advertise a SID/Label
mapping for a path to the a prefix. mapping for a path to the a prefix.
The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV MAY be originated by any router in an The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV MAY be originated by any router in an
OSPF domain. The router may advertise a SID/Label binding to a FEC OSPF domain. The router may advertise a SID/Label binding to a FEC
along with at least a single 'nexthop style' anchor. The protocol along with at least a single 'nexthop style' anchor. The protocol
supports more than one 'nexthop style' anchor to be attached to a supports more than one 'nexthop style' anchor to be attached to a
skipping to change at page 31, line 28 skipping to change at page 31, line 28
Implementation experience: Great spec. We also performed inter- Implementation experience: Great spec. We also performed inter-
operability testing with Cisco's OSPF Segment Routing implementation. operability testing with Cisco's OSPF Segment Routing implementation.
Contact information: wim.henderickx@nokia.com Contact information: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Responses from Cisco Systems: Responses from Cisco Systems:
Link to a web page describing the implementation: Link to a web page describing the implementation:
www.segment-routing.net/home/tutorial http://www.segment-routing.net/home/tutorial
The implementation's level of maturity: Production. The implementation's level of maturity: Production.
Coverage: All sections, except the section 6 (SID/Label Binding Sub- Coverage: All sections, except the section 6 (SID/Label Binding Sub-
TLV) have been implemented according to the latest draft. TLV) have been implemented according to the latest draft.
Licensing: Part of a commercial software package. Licensing: Part of a commercial software package.
Implementation experience: Many aspects of the draft are result of Implementation experience: Many aspects of the draft are result of
the actual implementation experience, as the draft evolved from its the actual implementation experience, as the draft evolved from its
skipping to change at page 32, line 46 skipping to change at page 32, line 46
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003, (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P. [RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007, RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250,
July 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5250>.
[RFC6845] Sheth, N., Wang, L., and J. Zhang, "OSPF Hybrid Broadcast [RFC6845] Sheth, N., Wang, L., and J. Zhang, "OSPF Hybrid Broadcast
and Point-to-Multipoint Interface Type", RFC 6845, and Point-to-Multipoint Interface Type", RFC 6845,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6845, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6845, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6845>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6845>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>. 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
skipping to change at page 33, line 51 skipping to change at page 33, line 37
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770, Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>. February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing interoperability with LDP", draft- "Segment Routing interoperability with LDP", draft-
filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-02 (work in filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-03 (work in
progress), September 2014. progress), March 2015.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases] [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases]
Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E. Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E.
Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils- Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils-
spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01 (work in progress), spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01 (work in progress),
October 2014. October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-spring-conflict-resolution] [I-D.ietf-spring-conflict-resolution]
Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., and M. Pilka, Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., and M. Pilka,
"Segment Routing Conflict Resolution", draft-ietf-spring- "Segment Routing Conflict Resolution", draft-ietf-spring-
conflict-resolution-01 (work in progress), June 2016. conflict-resolution-03 (work in progress), April 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Tantsura, J., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- spring-segment-routing-11 (work in progress), February
spring-segment-routing-00 (work in progress), December 2017.
2014.
[I-D.minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection] [I-D.minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection]
Jeganathan, J., Gredler, H., and Y. Shen, "RSVP-TE LSP Jeganathan, J., Gredler, H., and Y. Shen, "RSVP-TE LSP
egress fast-protection", draft-minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast- egress fast-protection", draft-minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-
protection-03 (work in progress), November 2013. protection-03 (work in progress), November 2013.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Peter Psenak (editor) Peter Psenak (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 18 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/