Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

Hi, Peter:

Thanks for your comments.
1. For BGP-LS deployment, there normally only be one router that within the
IGP domain to report the topology information, this router should know such
passive links which exists mainly on other border routers via the IGP
protocol. This is main reason to extension the IGP protocol.
2. For the solution, normally, the link within the IGP connect two ends, but
passive interface is special and not fall in this space. We have studied the
current TLVs that for link, and find no suitable container to append this
information. This is the reason that we select the TLVs that associated with
Prefix.

>From other POV, the OSPFv3 defines now the "Intra-Area-Prefix LSA", which
isolate the prefix information that associated with link into this
container, contains the stub link, local interface information etc. Put such
attribute along with the prefix is then acceptable?

Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Psenak
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 4:29 PM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt

Hi Aijun,

here's my comments:

The purpose of this draft is to advertise passive links.

1. I'm not sure the problem needs to be solved by IGPs. I tend to believe
ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext is sufficient.

2. the solution that you proposed is wrong. You are trying to derive
topological data about the passive links from the prefix advertisement. 
This is semantically incorrect and only works under very specific condition.
If you need to advertise a link, advertise it as a "special" 
link, not as a "special" prefix.

thanks,
Peter

On 29/09/2020 03:17, Aijun Wang wrote:
> Hi, Peter:
> 
> Would you like to review and give comments on the updates version of this
draft?
> We have also added the protocol extension proposal for OSPFv3.
> 
> The update version of this draft can refer to  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface
> -attribute
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 3:17 PM
>> To: Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra 
>> <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>; Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>; 
>> Gyan S. Mishra <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>
>> Subject: New Version Notification for 
>> draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D,
>> draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Aijun Wang and posted to the IETF 
>> repository.
>>
>> Name:		draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute
>> Revision:	04
>> Title:		Passive Interface Attribute
>> Document date:	2020-09-28
>> Group:		Individual Submission
>> Pages:		7
>> URL:
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.
>> txt
>> Status:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-att
>> r
>> ibute/
>> Htmlized:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interfac
>> e
>> -attribut
>> e
>> Htmlized:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribut
>> e
>> -04
>> Diff:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-at
>> t
>> ribute-04
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     This document describes the mechanism that can be used to
>>     differentiate the passive interfaces from the normal interfaces
>>     within ISIS or OSPF domain.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr