Re: [homenet] Egress Routing Discussion

[David Lamparter <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 05:22:22PM +0000, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
[...snip...]
> I have documented my approach, which provides the generalized concept, is built into the routing protocols IS-IS and OSPF, and also addresses at least one other "tagged routing" option, which is to look at flow labels.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-isis-automatic-prefix
>   "Automated prefix allocation in IS-IS", Fred Baker, 18-Feb-13
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-flowlabel-routing
>   "Using IS-IS with Role-Based Access Control", Fred Baker, 17-Feb-13
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing
>   "IPv6 Source/Destination Routing using IS-IS", Fred Baker, 17-Feb-13
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-flowlabel-routing
>   "Using OSPFv3 with Role-Based Access Control", Fred Baker, 17-Feb-13
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-dst-src-routing
>   "IPv6 Source/Destination Routing using OSPFv3", Fred Baker, 17-Feb-13
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-ospf-extensible
>   "Extensible OSPF LSAs", Fred Baker, 17-Feb-13

While I did not exactly review or even thoroughly read the
-ospf-extensible draft, I did just try to work with it in adding the
null route idea to -ospf-dst-src-routing.  I made these observations:

- the two drafts share the "FIB Design" appendix.  That shouldn't be in
  -extensible I presume?

- the -extensible draft says absolutely nothing about how to handle
  unknown TLVs.  I would suggest adding a bit to indicate mandatory /
  optional status, as done for example with BGP attributes.  I'm not
  sure whether cutting down on possible TLV or length values is viable,
  so maybe a third TLV header byte needs to be added for this.

- the -extensible draft references the source-prefix TLV.  This seems OK
  in general, however in 3.1.1 IPv6 Destination Prefix TLV, "The IPv6
  Destination Prefix TLV MAY be used with the IPv6 Source Prefix TLV,
  [...]" I believe it is somewhat weird to refer to a TLV that is not
  defined in that draft.

Cheers,

-David