IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 18 February 2019 14:02 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 D81C7130F13 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:02:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 VcUKDyoAXINh for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:02:24 -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 078F912941A for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 06:02:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1632; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1550498544; x=1551708144; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WiVWBJ4y7ujKfd9m9Q0+3L2oyiFiNb4PkJlSQgxHJGs=; b=Gvvfc5XwY0rPm4NnpBqUMXh0ziAmwTp5z7YwOhqP5qe81GjRCKsyIfEl LQGDb9DlCLU7hjfYvODhGEfXGLc2ZjDnxqOWj2eIr2arylBtltgxyB+kg 4ZO1N3R5B2vsmdNSCF4AwICPCH6V30xujmpaD/Ezjqs0NOHGxfrcC9kZd w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,384,1544486400"; d="scan'208";a="10145000"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Feb 2019 14:02:22 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.16] ([10.147.24.16]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x1IE2K1O032608; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:02:21 GMT
To: "Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <dirk.goethals@nokia.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <A4351C7F-183D-4490-BD3C-5ADC5C087F84@cisco.com> <b603a772-2266-f9a2-968e-274c7c140b21@cisco.com> <d42e303f-c7be-de09-bdb4-827fe97ad009@nokia.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <6d8caf2b-cb62-e862-67d5-a64d75653dfb@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:02:20 +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: <d42e303f-c7be-de09-bdb4-827fe97ad009@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.147.24.16, [10.147.24.16]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/f_NDKJ7ABWaRvmavNU2kxsBZ0fY>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01
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, 18 Feb 2019 14:02:27 -0000

On 18/02/2019 14:37 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
> I agree with Peter.
> For this to work, the ABR would need to add ALL originators, while I
> had the impression that we only had 1 originator per prefix,
> i.e. the originator which was found to be the closed to the ABR and
> for which the ABR installed a route.

above is exactly right.

thanks,
Peter

>
> Dirk
>
>
> On 2/18/2019 14:15, Peter Psenak wrote:
>> Support as coauthor, although I never really agreed with the usage of
>> the prefix originator for topology construction as described  in
>> section 3 and 5. I would prefer that part to be removed.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 13/02/2019 14:25 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>> This begins a two week adoption poll for the subject draft. Please send
>>> your comments to this list before 12:00 AM UTC on Thursday, February
>>> 28^th , 2019.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All authors have responded to the IPR poll and there is one
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext
>>>
>>>
>>> It is listed multiple times but references the same CN201810650141.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lsr mailing list
>>> Lsr@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email