Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 06 February 2019 09:02 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F1D130DFA; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 01:02:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.643
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3IxSJKgEoRf4; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 01:02:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E805F129B88; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 01:02:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3770; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1549443739; x=1550653339; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cI42MYCFYnNZWRycbOKpKuPLGYSTJOZ60TLjydZ4OpI=; b=irBnQovsxXIQk1rQC/BTqn7/jMzxr1jbPary9dpGlq98vuqRIcW94kzO zn4eVagGr1Nhvoj+ax0f0gpDT6jmEJTXjh1qfpjyZ6oWi2eiScXMYWE8+ QgQH3OaklEA7boYtObZ1g4L8WtTwsVDcmxqLcp6QeeNFkHRw6Xw40Enxg w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,339,1544486400"; d="scan'208";a="9847055"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2019 09:02:17 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.60] ([10.147.24.60]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x1692GCn027719; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 09:02:16 GMT
To: Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
References: <DE0E4808-0C9A-415B-9D96-85B75A385B84@gmail.com> <12BF6AD3-674E-47F5-BD05-040B33DD0354@cisco.com> <DB7PR04MB4521A0C4B0E14DEE4572C84BA86E0@DB7PR04MB4521.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CD275F53-6376-4848-B9EB-F422FB00BF6E@cisco.com> <8085D050-8FF9-4E93-8218-802ED36C6481@gmail.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <073f26a0-5796-6439-b96a-299fc6e06499@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:02:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8085D050-8FF9-4E93-8218-802ED36C6481@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.147.24.60, [10.147.24.60]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/8jJHo6bTye0cARCQtiWQdZgNb3A>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 09:02:22 -0000
Hi Alex, I believe you are right in saying that the RFC 4203 defined Link Local Identifier sub-TLV of the Link Local TLV, but did not do any IANA registration for it. thanks, Peter On 05/02/2019 20:40 , Alexander Okonnikov wrote: > Hi Acee, > > Yes, RFC 8510 provides alternative mechanism, but link identifier > discovery mechanism via link-local TE LSA is still valid. Hence, I think > that early mentioned issues need to be addressed. > > Thank you! > >> 5 февр. 2019 г., в 21:29, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com >> <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> написал(а): >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> *From: *Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com >> <mailto:alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>> >> *Date: *Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 12:59 PM >> *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, >> "ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org >> <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>, "lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" >> <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> >> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> Per my understanding Link Local/Remote ID Sub-TLV is to be conveyed in >> area-scope LSA to uniquely identify link between pair of routers. For >> link-local scope another Sub-TLV was introduced, for discovery of link >> IDs by two neighbors. >> >> The context is completely different – >> see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8510.txt >> >> May be, it is possible to reuse Link Local/Remote ID Sub-TLV (with >> Remote ID = 0) of Link TLV in link-local scope LSA, but the RFC >> follows another approach - to use another Sub-TLV and another TLV. I >> am not sure that we needed dedicated top-level TLV, though idea to use >> separate Sub-TLV seems to be reasonable. >> >> It is also possible to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut…. >> >> Acee >> >> Thank you! >> >> Best regards, >> Alexander Okonnikov >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *От:* Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> >> *Отправлено:* вторник, февраля 5, 2019 20:21 >> *Кому:* Alexander Okonnikov; ccamp@ietf.org >> <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org> >> *Тема:* Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> >> *From: *Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> on >> behalf of Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com >> <mailto:alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>> >> *Date: *Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 7:48 AM >> *To: *"ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org >> <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>, "lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" >> <lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> >> *Subject: *[Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV >> >> Hi, >> >> I have question regarding RFC 4203, Section 3. That section introduces >> top-level TLV type 4 (Link Local TLV) and, at the same time, describes >> Link Local Identifier TLV. I guess that latter in fact is Sub-TLV of >> Link Local TLV. Also, IANA Considerations section doesn't mention that >> Sub-TLV, but only introduction of Link Local TLV. IANA has no >> corresponding registry - "Types for Sub-TLVs of Link Local TLV (Value >> 4)". >> >> I believe this example is actually wrong and section 3 should refer to >> the top-level Link TLV (value 2) defined in RFC 3630. The Link Local >> Identifier is the one advertised in Link Local/Remote Identifiers >> Sub-TLV (type 11) defined in RFC 4203 section 1.1. >> >> Hope this helps, >> Acee >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> Best regards, >> Alexander Okonnikov > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
- Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV Acee Lindem (acee)
- [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV Alexander Okonnikov
- Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV Okonnikov Alexander
- Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV Alexander Okonnikov
- Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV Peter Psenak