Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 23 March 2024 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.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 EA51CC14F6FC for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLYbkdXC7sjq for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 479C4C14F5EC for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56bb22ff7baso3760717a12.3 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; t=1711230891; x=1711835691; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=10Uk8yL6x/VDDJ/O/RtCATYIFPVgitRsWYRDqU/mUlM=; b=Ltw4GlFAVRzKZVT7Uwbo0ju962YymywSah9vvEk0pCm0AD9KcR+cnQK+DEaMob7qEj Xo0yLem5Z84fvTv8MAxCNK+f+13JtXufEncPaJjAnG70s0d4orrusLp0VgfURY9r28DF pDkuCgi6oGG0DxYWRSYCWu8CANVtT/LHh0H0IdhfEBS+qkh14G+0Wt8yE5QPd9vNtvCy 8m2xmJ9hjSKpE8bgENEYN/Q10YjY/Om5YZ2RyM9UoZtm32/tu28hlNQ3B1nxPwovBoHh zGbWXGKX34KMyxWm0GI9ustnFT9K88kz6XEoZEFzY6yqsAbA/BhuijI8ndwW906yIfIl GIXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711230891; x=1711835691; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=10Uk8yL6x/VDDJ/O/RtCATYIFPVgitRsWYRDqU/mUlM=; b=s/PX5dA3HmGuhOlWJJj7jFo7CwdKV+fJRkgjVjoYQdTjsr3KCQosBep+q8n/GMo5ln bqw2vaQtJWy28BuZUc908W6BaPvIjimovBV4kjtAnfIN+e6tZ6C1/C0L8O5dii5c94CX /QOCweRmqjcdBXlWLsiNB7mwJkDtTt0MPkopXaN8WViCuUFWWbdq+ualW3Mu83FUCeUZ DE54qjqgbHt5GxuQmzrEv8bJa+3vsl51JrVypnycD1oX29MVQnauWNg8Fy92iZ0n7BR6 4PXX/MMLR0wEf8JZ9RKJUHl8jNxZHT9xYfxjvfz7qzC28uh0K6L0eb16HEueoDKpDint ZXfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwndbkqYc7qE3pMxpr97LS3Qjo6GGX3qvcNEweT9KkGsVyolRzC TbAZQiPPkWtTLrB/oEjIyPtIG6kK0lrfyVdwlXhBHz0XAhk3eoeNv2/qNRRjy6ac8YW5CU5cO60 D/51Ha7IDolHtS1IzjnlJAV6pkaiA5+YW7LIJJg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFYEyJ06gXkwoCBTeBKCJ6eVWj/PgWt1Jn4bAWb56bK3ztgMxxEUC03vWibxCLXF6kIp4q1spfuY9GibfUfuvw=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d716:0:b0:56b:c32b:2dd1 with SMTP id t22-20020a50d716000000b0056bc32b2dd1mr2126470edi.33.1711230891285; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F425E082-D008-4565-98AE-98593BF1F391@gmail.com> <A098B15D-8238-4949-AA23-EDEEFBEDE20E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A098B15D-8238-4949-AA23-EDEEFBEDE20E@gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:54:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MME05tG4Lkm-PPE3cV9L4QXaKAiESFb5Q8PX8Q041_Cj6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006778db06145afd18"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/o1B1k9rFr_hvEICwXmfVP2hO_U4>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:54:57 -0000

Hi Acee and WG,

> Those questioning the flag should have been paying attention
> when RFC 9513 and RFC 9352 were being discussed.

No.

#1 Those two RFCs are about segment routing
extensions. draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag is not.

#2 In those two RFCs it is very clear that anycast flag reflects only the
local configuration of the prefix (locator). Please observe that the draft
under discussion fails to indicate who and when should set this flag.
Quoted RFCs do. Number of questions surfaced if ABRs or ASBRs should be
setting such flag. Should summaries have such flag ? Etc ....

#3 In those two RFCs there is very good justification why this flag can be
useful .. to check if anycast prefixes are advertised with the same SIDs.
To me this is sufficient justification and perhaps a good reason why no one
had objections to RFC9513 and RFC9352.

Neither #1, nor #2 nor #3 apply to the subject draft for OSPFv2. While #2
hopefully can be easily added #1 and #3 are fundamentally different. So at
least draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag should provide a justification being as
good as #3.

So justification to add it here just because OSPFv3 or ISIS have it is not
enough.

Kind regards,
Robert


On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 10:38 PM Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Speaking as WG member:
>
> I support working group adoption.
>
> It would be good to add:
>
>    1. In the introduction, informational references to OSPFv3 [RFC9513]
> and ISIS [9352].
>    2. The example use cases for the prefix Anycast flag we've been
> discussing.
>
> Note that we already have this flag for OSPFv3 and IS-IS and
> implementations are making use of it. That ship has left the dock
> and now is the time to question whether the use cases could be solved in a
> different manner. Those questioning the flag should
> have been paying attention when RFC 9513 and RFC 9352 were being
> discussed.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 2024, at 2:43 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This starts the Working Group adoption call for
> draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag. This is a simple OSPFv2 maintenance draft
> adding an Anycast flag for IPv4 prefixes to align with IS-IS and OSPFv3.
> >
> > Please send your support or objection to this list before April 6th,
> 2024.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>