Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: (with COMMENT)

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Thu, 08 April 2021 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 98E9C3A338F; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 h4OkFKkzBCGR; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 858CB3A338E; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 19:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 123DC1C017D; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:10:37 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'John Scudder' <jgs@juniper.net>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator@ietf.org, chopps@chopps.org, lsr@ietf.org
References: <161784226689.28759.382383165155937728@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <161784226689.28759.382383165155937728@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 10:10:36 +0800
Message-ID: <008601d72c1c$5d4f8d40$17eea7c0$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJfr62lqs/yzuMQQB9IegGGf12+7qmY190A
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZGB9LGR0ZThgaTkxJVkpNSkxDT0xDSExPS09VEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS0hOT1VLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6PTY6CBw6IT8WOCNLDUouTD8Z FC9PCzpVSlVKTUpMQ09MQ0hMTE5DVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQU1KTk43Bg++
X-HM-Tid: 0a78af3ee284d993kuws123dc1c017d
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/IZYjSWpaiwruZ9STj4dkR3QM8nE>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 02:10:47 -0000

Hi, John:

-----Original Message-----
From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John Scudder via Datatracker
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 8:38 AM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: lsr-chairs@ietf.org; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator@ietf.org; chopps@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the update to the document and the discussion. Many points are resolved, remaining discussion summarized below. And by the way, I wondered the same as Ben regarding "In the ECMP case is there a way to correlate (order of
appearance?) the listed router-IDs with the listed reachable addresses?"

1. I've cleared my discuss but as mentioned in earlier email, would still suggest an update to the abstract:

"I would prefer to see a sentence in the abstract as well, since for some people the abstract is the only look they’ll take at the document and for them, the question of “what is it for?” isn’t answered. I don’t insist on this, but I recommend it. The additional sentence, if you choose to add it, could be something like “this information does not change route computation but is expected to be useful for network analysis and troubleshooting”."

2. Section 2.1:

   For intra-area prefix advertisements, the Prefix Source OSPF Router-
   ID Sub-TLV MUST be considered invalid and ignored if the OSPF Router
   ID field is not the same as Advertising Router field in the
   containing LSA.  Similar validation cannot be reliably performed for
   inter-area and external prefix advertisements.

As discussed with Ketan, I'm not sure if "ignored" is vague only to me, or if it might be to other readers of the spec. I leave it to the authors' discretion whether and how to elaborate.

4. Section 3:

   When an ABR generates inter-area prefix advertisements into its non-
   backbone areas corresponding to an inter-area prefix advertisement
   from the backbone area, the only way to determine the originating
   node information is based on the Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID and
   Prefix Source Router Address Sub-TLVs present in the inter-area
   prefix advertisement originated into the backbone area by an ABR from
   another non-backbone area.  The ABR performs its prefix calculation
   to determine the set of nodes that contribute to the best prefix
   reachability.  It MUST use the prefix originator information only
   from this set of nodes.  The ABR MUST NOT include the Prefix Source
   OSPF Router-ID or the Prefix Source Router Address Sub-TLVs when it
   is unable to determine the information of the best originating node.

What is it supposed to do if there are N contributing routes but it can only determine the information for M < N of the contributors?

Ketan replied (my paraphrase) that in such a case partial information is sent.
My further question was "OK. And it’s considered fine that that information for some, but not all, of the contributors is included? It seems potentially problematic that the route only includes partial information, but the consumer of the route has no way to know this. The other obvious choices would have been to omit the information altogether if only partial information was available, or to mark it as partial somehow."
[WAJ] My understanding is that such advertisement is dynamic. Once there is new originator for this prefix, the ABR should update the information associated with this prefix. It seems there is no way for the ABR to judge when it have collected all of these information or not? 



_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr