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

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dirk,

On 18/02/2019 14:47 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>> and you use these when you send a traffic to some of the prefixes that
>> T1 originates
>
> If T1 is not ASBR,  and this draft is not implemented, how are the nodes
> in the
> other area's going to know that the prefixes belong to T1?

that is exactly what this draft is trying to address. Today there is no 
way to determine the originator of the prefix in the remote area. We are 
adding that functionality in this draft.

thanks,
Peter

> Dirk
>
>
> On 2/18/2019 14:34, Peter Psenak wrote:
>> Hi Dirk,
>>
>> On 18/02/2019 14:27 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>> See inline DG>.
>>> Dirk
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/18/2019 14:18, Peter Psenak wrote:
>>>> Hi Dirk,
>>>>
>>>> On 18/02/2019 09:31 , Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
>>>>> support +1
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 question:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When S1 in another area receives such LSA, it then can learn that
>>>>>>    prefix Lt1 is associated with node T1, check the ELC, ERLD, or MSD
>>>>>>    value according to its necessity, and construct the right label
>>>>>> stack
>>>>>>    at the ingress node S1 for the traffic destined to Lt1.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is S1 going to know the "ELC, ERLD, or MSD" of  node T1?
>>>>> I guess, T1 will need to send an AS-scoped router info LSA?
>>>>
>>>> yes, that is a possibility.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, should T1 be ASBR as to be able to send this AS-scoped LSA?
>>>>
>>>> I would not think so.
>>> DG> What's the use of an AS-scoped LSA, if the receiver has no way
>>> to identify/locate the advertising router? Making T1 an ASBR will
>>> enforce the ABR to create a T4 LSA.
>>
>> if the T1 advertises some properties in it's AS-scoped LSA and you use
>> these when you send a traffic to some of the prefixes that T1
>> originates, then you don't really need to know where it is located,
>> you only care about its properties.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I guess it was needed before as to enforce  the ABR to create the T4
>>>>> LSAs,
>>>>> so that others can learn which ABR to use to reach T4, but I guess
>>>>> it's not needed anymore when this draft is implemented.
>>>>
>>>> not sure how you reached the above conclusion. Can you please clarify?
>>> DG> Since the ABR is adding the originator, one can indirectly learn
>>> that
>>> the originator is also reachable via this ABR.
>>
>> well, I don't think we want to replace the Type-4 LSA functionality
>> with the Prefix-Originator.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dirk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/2019 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>