Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-03
"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Tue, 05 February 2013 18:46 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5134721F890D; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:46:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iq3k+k0JPbOI; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D365021F86F0; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:46:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15495; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360090005; x=1361299605; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=I5aajqofKa2fiSENwZPezJ/O4g6p36UdXQgvqkY/Vn0=; b=j+9IPuo4jfGWvfQXA50ohQOrMs7zz067wrV1FA38zOuZ8kMJI9fzaTwh fMIzVkwNj+fvZLUCrpKgqWAvBUoZZ2T+4f00yQGBz1+bJff1M2qSXoXp9 i2iVKgdceZdyHG4PR+m7PKn5AHktp7GfKECedwlGYr2qa8uYoEdjnOT0Q Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAChTEVGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFgkm9GRZzgiEBBIELAQgiHTkUEQIEARIIE4d2DKpIkCiQemEDiDCPDo81gn6CJA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,609,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="173687354"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2013 18:46:43 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r15IkhT9012032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:46:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.174]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:46:42 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>, "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis.all@tools.ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-03
Thread-Index: AQHOAYmaPM3+s05c5Eq+gqRbTg9wl5hrr/UA
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:46:41 +0000
Message-ID: <BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94ED071B5@xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzzgTk06Qh1s5KJDmEQ8+nOw=VSZoU1_Ut5yxX-7AXJmOw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.210.59]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94ED071B5xmbalnx15ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:30:56 -0800
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-03
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:46:46 -0000
On 2/2/13 9:09 PM, "Dave Cridland" <dave@cridland.net<mailto:dave@cridland.net>> wrote: Dave: First of all, thanks for the review! .. For the most part this draft seems ready for publication, though I'm concerned it offers confusing guidance on which mechanism to use, and some wordsmithing is needed here. Detail: §2.1 suggests it is a "similar, if not better" solution available to OSPFv3 networks. It's not clear to me if this means "similar, and potentially better", or "similar, but not better". The second paragraph is also somewhat loose in whether this technique is recommended or not. It's not clear to me if the portion following the semicolon is essentially saying that the R-bit is superior; this is not helped by being unclear if "more granular" means finer or coarser. A quick trip to Wikipedia didn't help me, either, apparently it depends on whether the R-bit is photographic, sugary, or something else. My guess, without looking at the OSPFv3 specification, is that this technique is liable to be better by dint of the R-bit applying to individual prefixes - that is, the technique is "similar, and usually better", because the R-bit provides a "more specific", or possibly "individual" indication of whether a router is active. This may be wrong, in which case it's a perfect illustration of why it's confusing. We tried not to pass judgement as to which mechanism was better, since it depends on what the operator wants to do in the network: allow transit as a last resort or not at all. We tried to say something about that in the 'Deployment Consideration' section, but I do agree that we could make it clearer. The use of 'granular' is specially confusing as the R-bit is used to indicate whether the whole router is active (and should be used for transit) or not, versus the MaxLinkMetric option which expects all the non-stub links to use it. I put some proposed text below. In it we're clarifying the text in 2.1 and added a paragraph at the end of 4. Please let me know if this is still not clear. Thanks! Alvaro. 2.1. OSPFv3-only Solution OSPFv3 [RFC5340] introduced additional options to provide similar control of the forwarding topology; the R-bit provides an indication of whether a router is active and should be used for transit traffic. It is left to network operators to decide which technique to use in their network. See Section 4 for more details. .. 4. Deployment Considerations When using MaxLinkMetric, some inconsistency may be seen if the network is constructed of routers that perform intra-area Dijkstra calculation as specified in [RFC1247] (discarding link records in router-LSAs that have a MaxLinkMetric cost value) and routers that perform it as specified in [RFC1583] and higher (do not treat links with MaxLinkMetric cost as unreachable). Note that this inconsistency will not lead to routing loops, because if there are some alternate paths in the network, both types of routers will agree on using them rather than the path through the stub router. If the path through the stub router is the only one, the routers of the first type will not use the stub router for transit (which is the desired behavior), while the routers of the second type will still use this path. On the other hand, clearing the R-bit will consistently result in the router not being used as transit. The use of MaxLinkMetric or the R-bit in a network depends on the objectives of the operator. One of the possible considerations for selecting one or the other is in the desired behavior if the path through the stub router is the only one available. Using MaxLinkMetric allows for that path to be used, while the R-bit doesn't. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-03#section-3>
- [apps-discuss] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-ospf-… Dave Cridland
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-o… Alvaro Retana (aretana)
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-o… White, Russell
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir Review of draft-ietf-o… Dave Cridland