< 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 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/