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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Speaking as WG member:

Hi Aijun, Peter, 
I agree with Peter - one of the main motivations for having areas is to abstract the topology within the area. Now you're trying to supplant this  - one topological detail at a time with ill-conceived IGP features.
Thanks,
Acee

On 9/29/20, 5:15 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" <[e-mail] on behalf of ppsenak=[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Aijun,

    On 29/09/2020 11:07, Aijun Wang wrote:
    > 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.

    if the link is unnumbered, your solution does not work. As I said, if 
    you need a knowledge about the link, you can not advertise it as a prefix.

    thanks,
    Peter


    > 
    >>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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Peter
    > Psenak
    > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 4:29 PM
    > To: Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
    > Cc: [e-mail]
    > 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
    >>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 3:17 PM
    >>> To: Zhibo Hu <[e-mail]>; Gyan Mishra
    >>> <[e-mail]>; Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>;
    >>> Gyan S. Mishra <[e-mail]>
    >>> 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
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
    > 
    > 
    > 

    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr