IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV

Okonnikov Alexander <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com> Tue, 05 February 2019 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.okonnikov@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 E5C0713117F; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:59:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 V8krG6hHZYKa; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (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 C8EA3131179; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id z9so1825855pfi.2; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:59:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=blgyWb1Ex7/v5nrq+AzcVYoV4GZQXIeVMQk4JRr8ezE=; b=ITs8iWMGWKb5GzduxAbKpsSeQHXaAGZrthtApUqavhSSqV1h65lwp87vC3kygbFmjx WdlaC/+piClhxLkFj6TlWHBjuzal19k2qhLWmSR4u9JS9EUO5Kve6qwlsYT2Vnrq7z9D cDg+PUNMIl7C1SDtm5FISJYgmmoojwrtf78NgF7RDRWHQe1lO8hghWL0HHdn43KFRlvd MGU3lDJ/MN59ZaGNMukhWY1+tGqPq0mhr18aJTrYdCuEHkjTvXB2VciB62L6W1UB/l2s ztmlr7Tx67WyjQNwbjKOhuKQKry/Vgf33/EB3zebqCC5Q59he60V8KdZZ1qIbicoDieq 1zAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=blgyWb1Ex7/v5nrq+AzcVYoV4GZQXIeVMQk4JRr8ezE=; b=T9QUyesOYhkzxzQeBDXuEYayO0vsSwTuC9DzxCv91AkmKX/sjbOGDVCUvol/YCK/Ei FHY32IrU8sCqS3jl6TPqb23c9R35ci9KeAWEaDp0aYrd5jqZ6iWEC31X7ypWLCbceTEZ /BADBxv1hXZQ7HEJYrcC0SqXKJmoOZnVRbQc8p+a+ovr1tYdBovMkaK0IesdwTXoFYw9 ztCsqtEs0wefqrqr4SDYz6F5j/FuLYuaIYKpn6lrrgS/GlqGruNjPRcTpWE2tPr1aKNE mlx5uSjgfeuEVG0Y5B8VkpPVHkGR9VMHLdGUupVTxsrqeLRZgN7sUu9AEVed8VdMtTNg WwVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaqMvEktMeNbHHkpb1Yjx/c6acdRQPi3SA+B/U1Rr8BDy8asc7i eW78vDqDm7VuPuVeFCjuBgg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZpkB0j76xWd0N2UpcMH3ofQJRZTxv8ynQVgQP4JmaxcjuSUsAymnvUHeGT2QYt2TQDsyPDDw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:2141:: with SMTP id s1mr5641599pgm.148.1549389558249; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DB7PR04MB4521.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([40.101.102.213]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g28sm5058881pfd.100.2019.02.05.09.59.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:59:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Okonnikov Alexander <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV
Thread-Index: ATQ1OTQ46CpR3iZlhAP/GlZdBY8PjzQzMDQzv27s/nw=
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 17:59:11 +0000
Message-ID: <DB7PR04MB4521A0C4B0E14DEE4572C84BA86E0@DB7PR04MB4521.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DE0E4808-0C9A-415B-9D96-85B75A385B84@gmail.com>, <12BF6AD3-674E-47F5-BD05-040B33DD0354@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <12BF6AD3-674E-47F5-BD05-040B33DD0354@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: ru-RU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DB7PR04MB4521A0C4B0E14DEE4572C84BA86E0DB7PR04MB4521eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/kDDGldfaisn5pUsKHwC8FMupVSg>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV
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: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 17:59:21 -0000

Hi Acee,

Per my understanding Link Local/Remote ID Sub-TLV is to be conveyed in area-scope LSA to uniquely identify link between pair of routers. For link-local scope another Sub-TLV was introduced, for discovery of link IDs by two neighbors.

May be, it is possible to reuse Link Local/Remote ID Sub-TLV (with Remote ID = 0) of Link TLV in link-local scope LSA, but the RFC follows another approach - to use another Sub-TLV and another TLV. I am not sure that we needed dedicated top-level TLV, though idea to use separate Sub-TLV seems to be reasonable.

Thank you!

Best regards,
Alexander Okonnikov

________________________________
От: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
Отправлено: вторник, февраля 5, 2019 20:21
Кому: Alexander Okonnikov; ccamp@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Тема: Re: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV

Hi Alex,


From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 7:48 AM
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Lsr] OSPF TE Link Local TLV

Hi,

I have question regarding RFC 4203, Section 3. That section introduces top-level TLV type 4 (Link Local TLV) and, at the same time, describes Link Local Identifier TLV. I guess that latter in fact is Sub-TLV of Link Local TLV. Also, IANA Considerations section doesn't mention that Sub-TLV, but only introduction of Link Local TLV. IANA has no corresponding registry  - "Types for Sub-TLVs of Link Local TLV (Value 4)".

I believe this example is actually wrong and section 3 should refer to the top-level Link TLV (value 2) defined in RFC 3630. The Link Local Identifier is the one advertised in Link Local/Remote Identifiers Sub-TLV (type 11) defined in RFC 4203 section 1.1.

Hope this helps,
Acee

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Alexander Okonnikov

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email