IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@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 123143A0CD9; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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] 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 qkTtVtlPcrT2; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (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 B52463A0CD8; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 18:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id j20so3527913pfe.5; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=TVYYuPSlTrjaR8Z4/9zJbHJPIpnXEhoksjf01qIm+1o=; b=GYp8ack+38Pyuw8otRKLzIE2gHLi2d/iwKaYm4RWv1LxNzN+ExtqZko6wO+aQc2sbc shH7nsmgzScKeP1dxM85lqIMBIIcUwoHsxEVhD22wJiXIMfXmAgp9szUzVHDRTER5YSU kBrjzoUklfh6isvXARMANqFHjZZMEpdBSyo7Fei8R42Odiig5XXyh+/HMuln7tNlieHN nY8zM4OELxxBzhb02HzTCXrJHy/6g6Qqo9fweWtMatDYRJ9altPx978zXwH1S068xsxx RVk3PCrLlz1CfuyZ/8IluLhaWXY2Q2EbKEoSF05SXBGQHCdhoVFLlsP/tIc2m8iphRgs zy0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=TVYYuPSlTrjaR8Z4/9zJbHJPIpnXEhoksjf01qIm+1o=; b=hRuFoPkQzhyovrgPqg5BkFeYVOAXqBRhcjeecwYjyMqfZC9EqhZbvI76el37WJl2+P ttLv3e2iEubyrU+45U4Mj4YsyDH4a4PEzYNsQ8PqCC0ICDwYEZeoJxIo60YovhqKD7X1 zW1kuAvlPFxQMr1tUlVXeNkgkv3EHeZls0yvwBumFL0pwTeJW4XQXFl1XHY3Q3QlzyQg sKueiIyrhoFBd0V/go1lmfMd/MBmS4UvY8WKKf0YR5/UvEIM4Hu3qgNE+Ck/cFfcObhB Qz/1ZeqGtpsstRH8Svg3F5JG5w1s0zUkLc6fxykalfWHXAvjwnkIpbYldP/3uUUe1znk u0jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531jJiQS1FNsiTWJJxWa/w6qFNXf9j7g1X1jTlkOkam2/nKBqp6G mmNLihzHjTUgZvMBHPwTWbA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxCubk4mGPEuehqAPya6kKwVi9HV4MHSMmjpEfBnp51FQ55F3iocVY+rHCmsaEYeNntZZr8Uw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1641:: with SMTP id 1mr47258417pgw.370.1594170697020; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.95.80.3] ([162.210.129.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m17sm22778487pfo.182.2020.07.07.18.11.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <463D8C38-723D-47A4-A0A0-E4739011CF35@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3ECD1AF5-537A-4912-B350-A95131D3791B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 18:11:34 -0700
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR13MB3117D630599BC2860B7C816BF2660@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
References: <MN2PR13MB3117B443411BDA4E4F4DFC03F2660@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <1AAE35CE-5EEC-4030-A3E7-24DBF422017D@cisco.com> <MN2PR13MB3117D630599BC2860B7C816BF2660@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/cwLEmXybvkMBKcSz0chSc17fExE>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ
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, 08 Jul 2020 01:11:39 -0000

Hi Huaimo,

>     Differences between OSPF TTZ and OSPF Area Proxy (note: assume that OSPF Area Proxy is similar to IS-IS Area Proxy even though OSPF Area Proxy is not defined in the Area Proxy draft) include:


That’s an unfortunate assumption.  We have not defined OSPF Area Proxy because it’s frankly well outside of our expertise.

The hierarchical structures of OSPF and IS-IS are intrinsically different.  While legacy IS-IS allows L2 traffic to transit an L1L2 area, my understanding is that when OSPF traffic leaves Area 0, it won’t be coming 
back.  While I don’t particularly like this aspect of the OSPF architecture, it’s NOT what we were out to fix.  

So, please don’t assume anything about OSPF Area Proxy.  

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email