On March 5, 2022 at 5:29:36 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Ketan:
Hi! > We have also just posted an update to address some of the comments below and > from other ADs. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-19 That version addresses my DISCUSS -- I'm clearing. I have one reply in the comments below. Thanks! Alvaro. ... > > > > (7) §2.4: "When signaling is via PCEP...the AS number SHOULD be set to > > > > 0 by default when not available or known." > > > > > > > > When is it ok for the ASN to not be set to 0 (when not available or > > > > known)? If that possibility exists, the PCE can use any value > > > > (including the real number or a random one). What issues exist with > > > > uncoordinated (or rogue) PCEs using potentially arbitrary ASNs? > > > > > > > > Why is this action recommended and not required? > > > > > > KT> AFAIR PCEP signaling does not carry AS number. So this is a > > > recommendation, though a local policy or a future PCEP extension could > > > change that and we don't want to preclude it. > > ... > > If the ASN can be signaled, when is it ok for it to not be set to 0 > > (when not available or known)? If that possibility exists, the PCE > > can use any value (including the real number or a random one). What > > issues exist with uncoordinated (or rogue) PCEs using potentially > > arbitrary ASNs? > > KT> I will leave this question for the PCEP WG if and when they decide to add > support for ASN to be signaled. It does not make any impact from this > specification perspective since it is only used to identify the originator. The impact on this document it that it is specifying the behavior Normatively - let's eliminate that. Suggestion> If signaling via PCEP, it is the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the PCE and the AS number is expected to be set to 0 by default when not available or known. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
