[Lsr] LSR meeting comment on draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance

Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 08 March 2021 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <umac.ietf@gmail.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 5138D3A1722 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:48:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ptxkcdkY3WvF for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:48:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D1703A1728 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:48:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id f4so11557883ybk.11 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:48:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=M8EHZJm3B2KuxdyFmvhKrz7IC+AX3GSANw4KRIRGIwc=; b=M+ipCjapXKXOVcHzZ05kNqV6eSyGs2oC9rEbkpHkumYFlPetkRiYN1Alh5iGYWGhh5 2eCU8y0+SdIJlX0g45l591SwIhbIKoKkX3bqTq6biIAnifTSvi298eiMQQdleA6QoMRF 3IPvJSarp6EBtlykqyjfdhF7f1jGBvmdpDSPibNF1oJY2A/jgcr1V2gn1GFGqyvb1IJx OxsvV4OIhEfslzSFOXDppI/la/HJEF/uZezPqBcfjjC76MAShAMOUPJIopv5MAdyD4eg Fm6dZW62vinPVkW/u+Fx4KBlRcU7qV/LmE3v99qT6RX9qnIodBUFOK/Cdax03E4VrooS f8Cg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=M8EHZJm3B2KuxdyFmvhKrz7IC+AX3GSANw4KRIRGIwc=; b=lqNiMjlh0et5cAvqPMQl2oWxjIUerc/lImiPEwM+axIrUnm+rgKYB7mftTftoh46qz ch/VjqD/8kOFRnXRm1dx2Uc4BCzARC1r24j6VpYgGiT5t3L7lGR3fJEnShEf1MgmuW+Q 9nVX80eRpCg/tlLRl1OY+TFzBkx5iaCdqTSFI0fiyNb8Hq8VoRGlj4m6+6GXWQwvv5i/ 9ozy7mlgdHDxagATNkmfJww+cGZYB6XgLJPrlhOnJ5PGUDE+23ySzgUSH7RGrgRk5Msu Ppxh6liyiP5/Fc8rcbpIuLyLLqaeWqAVV9Gb1+HMShrlDJ5o/AlND/hKeZGZHE2YZGHi MZkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SG1Nglk9rYNepmi1cIdIwYJiCkOld3M/8hCvX6crrfVswzFBG qjZqbJKbJQS5xsAbs3FZQgff04v0mHcVyMhI/pR0UsPVzD4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxZlRXIIgc11qVX7L0KAlTCfjoNR7UWI5oV1J1vxPBUaJqO+fSM2e1I4uqL90O/vc0roIRzKcSE13oI+p4d30=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6746:: with SMTP id b67mr4669775ybc.142.1615236518383; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:48:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:48:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAF18ct5-up=PDMfMyRk_-yV9bMQEgOjvma+9q+X19uyOCC0atw@mail.gmail.com>
To: lsr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e811bd05bd0c8ed3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/OFzINrQ_KX62J4_e4tAHov0z8p4>
Subject: [Lsr] LSR meeting comment on draft-acee-lsr-ospf-transport-instance
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: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 20:48:43 -0000

Dear Authors,

Just want to quickly clarify my comment today on this draft.

We know there was a significant discussion many years ago when similar work
was done during  RFC 6822 (ISIS-MI) and RFC 6823 (GenInfo).  The usefulness
of this is evident with the more recent publication
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8202/. I am certainly not in the group
and would not question 'why' this is needed in OSPF.

However, section 3.1 use cases are difficult to understand and quite
frankly either through the reference (ETSI-WP28-MEC) or the cases listed.
As long as there is overlay in those networks (with the 3GPP preferred
option expanded rapidly for multiple interfaces beyond N9, F1, W1 etc after
REL16+) the usefulness of this core network and application info into the
underlay and routing layer is limited and even more so for UEs.

So please either expand the use case (sec 3.1) to see how this is
applicable or leave it out for future scenarios.

--
Uma C.