Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Record on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-09: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 31 March 2021 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 2C8003A3660 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 3PIE64C0edQJ for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (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 233A63A3661 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id u20so25371129lja.13 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=unXYOd4PzFwNH8/7fnvvYDRq8qWFBxs6+8dnqbBR5P8=; b=aDbEuHorLVEXTwruAiPnS4NM1dfvl5coY7M57DI4RvhxSbEdbE0wDJKKhyQNYRWHXs pVY7nJIriEZy4DBsWFLODJoYSlNXLH6ITj+6pL5VdRQ8gfihiQVyCsmIKqCL9KdQriwl KjjGK86FsRzkQWb8t7kBJAYoSYgLkoNq8oiRr6hM+4KwOmH+34JNd4V1w7jqy4jMm3y3 caQbI1aP3+j1v8jHhPTv8XOShi3QmwbTKoyLb0cOshQ2LOayv8F9B1S1/JNPfaQQ1Bit uVt6HKDaXpj6Ptu5VYk61qoUb/IkT2qM1DRfftvCLW4s24huZx5AYRf0ftI3fIxceQ9u bIeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=unXYOd4PzFwNH8/7fnvvYDRq8qWFBxs6+8dnqbBR5P8=; b=C35pJzoYL1rmZYzA5/2vWhoQlJJAmov09QpbqZWGNSkVDolI45Qj2xx4+7l0elbTbz u1ZPoLHozvkZnt/PW80KQRRhibiv2DKpU4ex7mWyG0bxb+avfNk6mZuNkA7+ZhafY2sY ektX8+nmERKRz1ObOJwTmrpeZfCynug+At1vxXrI/yBoVte1ptA63iwQZZzwQ+2jdtl7 eLGh4/wZHVQQ35/qwLqA63CzxUkK6hDpCKAtRg5cuv9hsYcH/vsrt3DkkuFGjVTJrPkh VATxIiUfIfuyf9AxyJwMx3bhUuOQ8dmN4I5tmv1ZnrWvJo3Bz5WhXiyESSxncEg1XRdo xVBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rmOLT+O9h6eKoEhfRmbUgNJf6q6BIKpQZSNjZeBkcNfxdxzW5 fxzhjuTtFKZpHQ1Q2Qtl64JGalsSbQRWmw4vsbLjcw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyUxoMWeiMnAH6rYJFvCfYS0CM7QuGp2iakcsGcvBrNBAhGi/x7KzcoSqFz2unNTLweJD4thCZk4v1WDgTopJY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:86c8:: with SMTP id n8mr3330950ljj.409.1617222763177; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161713218098.27090.4773071343890763490@ietfa.amsl.com> <SA0PR11MB4576DCDFCC449AEA63E5F433C17C9@SA0PR11MB4576.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAHw9_iKV1hDK6fHDpNptqEdZ3tmBNLT1sYmrX7FwgvO=+jiYBA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iKV1hDK6fHDpNptqEdZ3tmBNLT1sYmrX7FwgvO=+jiYBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:32:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+U+beEhR1918iCdN3DYzbKpkZa-U0FyOzHYKZRo-7Nxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000527a2405bedb04a2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/crZDAVYrrhyfjHzEFuNtoU-QTb0>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Record on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-09: (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: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:32:51 -0000

... and apparently I'd lied to you, both in the Ballot itself, and also in
this thread. I'd said that I had balloted NoObjection, but apparently  I'd
hit No Comment instead. I'm fixing it now; mentioning just for the record...
W

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:29 PM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:46 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <
> ketant@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Warren,
>>
>> Thanks for your review and please check inline below. Will look forward
>> to your inputs on how best to incorporate them in the draft.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
>> Sent: 31 March 2021 00:53
>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator@ietf.org; lsr-chairs@ietf.org;
>> lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; aretana.ietf@gmail.com;
>> chopps@chopps.org
>> Subject: Warren Kumari's No Record on
>> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-09: (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-09: No Record
>>
>> 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:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I'm balloting No Objection, but I really would like a response...
>>
>> 1: I'm assuming I'm just missing something obvious here, but Section 2.2
>> sayeth:
>> "A received Prefix Source Router Address Sub-TLV that has an invalid
>> length (i.e. not consistent with the prefix's address family) or a Router
>> Address containing an invalid IPv4 or IPv6 address (dependent on address
>> family of the associated prefix) MUST be considered invalid and ignored. "
>>
>> What is an "invalid IPv4" address here? If the length is 4, and the route
>> address is 00000001 or 0xc0a80001, how do you know that that's not what I'm
>> using? Again, I suspect that there is something obvious that I'm missing
>> here...
>> [KT] I did some digging around and was not really able to find a good
>> reference to what would be "invalid IPv4" in this context. 0x00000001 would
>> be invalid but 0xc0a80001 would be valid. A multicast or ClassE or
>> 0xffffffff would also be invalid. Basically, any address that cannot be
>> used as Router Address (i.e.
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.4.1) would be invalid. Not
>> sure if we should just remove the "invalid" part here or to attempt to go
>> about specifying it.
>>
>
> I'd suggest just removing it -- trying to specify what "invalid" means in
> this case will likely lead to madness. If you really want to keep it, I'd
> suggest just saying something along the lines of "A received Prefix Source
> Router Address Sub-TLV that has an invalid length (i.e. not consistent with
> the prefix's address family) or a Router Address containing any address
> that cannot be used as Router Address (i.e.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.4.1) MUST be considered
> invalid and ignored." If it were me, I'd just delete the last bit, and back
> away slowly.... Actually, I'm not even sure that ignoring it *is* the right
> answer. If I look through $whatever and see a Router Address of 0xffffffff,
> it is "meaningless", but possibly it is evidence that something, somewhere,
> is horribly borked, and I should probably go investigate.
>
>
>
>>
>> 2: This presumable has the side effect of increasing the size of the
>> lsdb, possibly by a fairly large margin. It seems like it would have been
>> nice to include an operational considerations section noting this, and,
>> while you are at it, that this document will significantly aid in
>> debugging....
>> [KT] Almost all of the protocol extensions do result in increase of the
>> LSDB size. However, depending on the use-case, these extensions may be used
>> for select prefixes (e.g. the leaf networks to which traffic/service flows
>> are destined to). The Sec 3 does have the following text that touches upon
>> mitigation for this scaling part:
>>
>>    Implementations MAY support the selection of specific prefixes for
>>    which the originating node information needs to be included with
>>    their prefix advertisements.
>>
>>    Implementations MAY provide control on ABRs to selectively disable
>>    the propagation of the originating node information across area
>>    boundaries.
>>
>
> Noted (and that all extensions do increase the LSDB size) -- this
> extension is *possibly* different in that it seems that it has larger
> scope. Whatever the case, a simple "This may provide information hiding,
> and also limit the increase of the LSDB size" or "Consideration should be
> given to the operational impact of the increase in LSDB size" somewhere
> would make me a happy bunny. Note that my ballot is a NoObjection
> (non-blocking), and I will not be overly sad if you ignore this...
>
>
>
>>
>> [KT] Regarding the debugging part - I agree. Should we add an operational
>> considerations section here or just include this aspect in the introduction
>> within the following text?
>>
>>    The primary use case for the extensions proposed in this document is
>>    to be able to identify the originator of a prefix in the network.  In
>>    cases where multiple prefixes are advertised by a given router, it is
>>    also useful to be able to associate all these prefixes with a single
>>    router even when prefixes are advertised outside of the area in which
>>    they originated.  It also helps to determine when the same prefix is
>>    being originated by multiple routers across areas.
>>
>
> Either. I'd personally like an operational considerations section (hey,
> I'm an OpsAD, I *always* want an Operational Consideration section :-)),
> but I'm also fine with this just being stuffed elsewhere in the document.
> If you**do** add an operational consideration section it would be a perfect
> place for the above comment :-)
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ketan
>>
>>
>
> --
> The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
> complexities of his own making.
>   -- E. W. Dijkstra
>


-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra