Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Peter Psenak <> Wed, 03 September 2014 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448531A8549 for <>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id naxttN-h6Gkf for <>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 481E81A00AA for <>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2800; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409732002; x=1410941602; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1fELtnVi0xr7KS7QPpifGaR1WGWg/mhtusndTQer5lE=; b=PVmmPDN3wry7H1uM8iQYQtQIxfzFfENgupYGkEQBaqbgj55M/DmcrJ/O /sVJAMBQVAMinlEHyX0HUfD1PiHZwf0kduYiuy8SwhIAsE/BV+ITTLXrG 7LF86fZ52KoOmnUXS4HzbW0iS/BmzMdw08P5SuTLEfchcr3df28dgZYnS g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,455,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="164247185"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2014 08:13:19 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s838DHEL008115; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:13:17 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:13:17 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rob Shakir <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:14:23 -0000

Hi Rob,

On 9/3/14 10:08 , Rob Shakir wrote:
> Hi Peter.
> On 26 Aug 2014, at 16:43, Peter Psenak <> wrote:
>> On 8/26/14 17:32 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
>>> operators want to assign node-tags as per router function (ABR, PE, core) and then
>>> the LFA-selection becomes much easier to specify. - e.g.
>>> - only pick a LFA that does not cross another PE router.
>>> similarily it is desirable for "LFA tunnel termination"
>>> to put out a constraint which says
>>> - only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'
>> my point is that with the above approach you have to:
>> 1. On candidate PQ nodes configure the tag X
>> 2. on all other nodes configure "only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'"
>> It's (2) which makes me feel uncomfortable, as it's a config to be applied to many nodes.
> I’m unclear on how one would solve this — the key thing is that there are number of scenarios where it is *operator* preference rather than node capabilities that mean that we want to select a particular node for some certain application. This preference may be on a per-calculating node basis. If this is the case, then a single capability that says that a particular target node is capable of acting in a particular role is not sufficient.
> (Consider this scenario:
> 	- rtr-A is in country 1.
> 	- rtr-B is in country 2.
> 	- Both rtr-A and rtf-B are capable of acting as PQ nodes,and need to act as such for ‘local’ nodes (i.e., those in the same country as them).
> 	- rtr-A should never select rtr-B as a PQ.
> In this case, we need some tag that specifies country, as well as some tag that specifies that it is a valid PQ node. We then need specific policy on rtr-A and rtr-B to implement this policy.)
> It is very typical that where we have such policy implementations, then we need to configure the behaviour on a per-node basis. This is especially true where policies must consider characteristics of the topology.
>>> i found it always strange that we for TE (as an example for
>>> constraining paths) we have got ways to tag links, but
>>> not way to tag nodes - that draft aims to fix that.
>> I'm not against tagging nodes as such. What worries me if we end up using node tags for signalling capabilities of node.
> As per the above, I do not think that this mechanism replaces any capability, it just gives an operator a means to be more granular than the binary “supported”/“not supported” view that a flag indicating capabilities does.

I understand. My point was that admin tags should not be used in cases 
where only a binary capability is signaled.


> I, of course, support the adoption of this draft as a co-author.
> Cheers,
> r.
> .