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

Aijun,

On 19/02/2019 03:01 , Aijun Wang wrote:
> Hi, Peter and Dirk:
>
> Thanks for your comments and the previous explanation.
>
> For the use case related to the topology retrieval, I have the following
> consideration, please point out if I have some misunderstandings for the
> OSPF LSA procedure:
> 1) For prefix that is rooted at only one router, such as the loopback
> address, only one originator for the prefix will be added by the ABR.
> 2) For prefix that is connected two nodes, such as the prefix that
> identifies the link between them, the originator information will be added
> twice for this prefix. Doing so does not the contradict with actual physical
> deployment.

what you are proposing is to list all prefix originators, regardless of 
which one is contributing to best path to the prefix on the ABR. I 
personally do not like that idea.

>
> The originator information will be added by the ABR when it receives the
> Router LSA, as described in section 5 of the draft.
> When the ABR receives such information, it may not begin the SPF calculation
> and can't decide which side is closer to the ABR.

ABR MUST run SPF and determine whether the prefix is reachable and what 
is the best path metric to reach it in the original area. Such 
information is used when generating Type-3 LSA to other connected areas.

thanks,
Peter

>
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Aijun Wang
> Network R&D and Operation Support Department
> China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
> 发送时间: 2019年2月18日 22:02
> 收件人: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); Acee Lindem (acee);
> lsr@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix
> Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> .
>