Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse" - draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07.txt

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

+1 to what Peter has stated.

Olivier -

We are aware that link attribute management/application has challenges - which is why we are careful to allow sharing of attributes when appropriate.
But to state that there is no problem and that things can be addressed with existing IGP functionality if one is "careful" contradicts our existing deployment experience - as Peter has clearly stated.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 6:27 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering
> (TE) Attribute Reuse" - draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07.txt
> 
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> There are two major purposes served by the drafts:
> 
> 1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications
> 
> 2)Advertisement of application specific values even on links that are in
> use by multiple applications
> 
> These issues are clearly articulated in the Introductions of both
> drafts. LSR WG acknowledged them a while back and decided to address
> them.
> 
> Issue #1 has already had a significant impact on early deployments of
> SRTE in networks where there is partial deployment of SR in the presence
> of RSVP-TE.
> 
> Issue #2 will be seen in deployments where Flex-Algo and SRTE (or
> RSVP-TE) are also present. Early implementers of Flex-Algo can attest to
> this.
> 
> It is simply not possible to address these issues with the existing
> single set of application independent advertisements.
> 
> The solutions we provide in both drafts allow to share the link
> attributes between application as well as keep them separate if that is
> what is required.
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> On 11/04/2019 19:43 , [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not in favour of this draft.
> >
> > As already mention, I don't see the interest to duplicate TE attributes
> > in new Extended Link Opaque LSA. For me, it is only a matter of
> > implementation to look at various place in the OSPF TE Database to take
> > Traffic Engineering information.
> >
> > From an operator perspective, it is already hard to manage TE attribute
> > and I'm pretty sure that we could not ask network management team to
> > maintain 2 systems for certainly a long period of time as many TE
> > attributes remains in the standard Opaque LSA Traffic Engineering.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> >
> > Le 11/04/2019 à 18:11, Acee Lindem (acee) a écrit :
> >>
> >>  LSR Working Group,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This begins a two week  WG last call for the subject document. Please
> >> enter your support or objection to the document before 12:00 AM (EDT)
> >> on Friday, April 27^th , 2019.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Acee
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lsr mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> _____
> >
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
> message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
> this message and its attachments.
> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> > Thank you.
> >