Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 19:57 UTC
Return-Path: <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D13E11E86C9 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o9RSPi0AxOfa for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6944311E81F8 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-b7fe28e000000d82-85-526586c3d098
Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7B.AD.03458.3C685625; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:55:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB101.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.118]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:55:47 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOzpeJzDT6ZhHmikK259DG9ZYkDw==
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:55:46 +0000
Message-ID: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030A1CA2@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <a7fe1ca5fbde4befb1f89a64415a4279@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5F2F6AF24E7D784287D3AFFAA3A8D525@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpikeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHT/dIW2qQwepyi2m3prNZ9N97wmbR fGkzu0XLvXvsFnverWW0uPFoL7MDm0fbl8lMHkuW/GTyuN50ld3jw6ILrAEsUVw2Kak5mWWp Rfp2CVwZkxsbGAt++FWcOXOHuYFxvVUXIyeHhICJxMPmPhYIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAkcZJX51 n2aFcJYzSsy7vpcRpIpNQEfi+aN/zCC2iICmxLWJT8GKmAU2MUr07Oth6mLk4BAWyJT4f90P xBQRyJJoX2sCUa4nMWfbZCYQm0VAVWLZjCdgi3kFfCX23VkBZnMKhElsXHuWFcRmBDro+6k1 YPXMAuISt57MZ4I4VEBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx//A6kWB5nfPWs4KEVeWWPJkPwtEr47Egt2f2CBs a4mPz7ezQtjaEssWvmaGuEFQ4uTMJywTGMVnIVk3C0n7LCTts5C0z0LSvoCRdRUjR2lxallu upHhJkZgPB6TYHPcwbjgk+UhRmkOFiVx3i9vnYOEBNITS1KzU1MLUovii0pzUosPMTJxcEo1 MBbHfm9kmMaTbGWRmSS5u1/MfCr7423XFOZ9YDO0qrn5d9cTp+cXrik9T9OYJ5ircXzCUYtp p06f4FAy+L/eqELJfll60kH2zyZ/JzTPf/fWSl5NbZpDxrR5Rb88brJ+/yGYffDyb5vpH+d5 LJm+QFW6KrZfqfTPnJcMd4S1BR5sDM9eWDlTpUOJpTgj0VCLuag4EQDuMJoulQIAAA==
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, Rob Shakir <rob.shakir@bt.com>, Harish Raghuveer <hraghuveer@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:57:24 -0000
I think we are in a circular argument here and I'm not discuss this independently with each of the authors. Either you have to limit the number of tags, define a new LSA, or do the work to make RI LSA multi-instance. All are viable alternatives with differing pros and cons - including it in the existing RI LSA is not a viable alternative. Remember to request a session if you plan to present it at IETF 88. Thanks, Acee On 10/21/13 12:49 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shraddha@juniper.net> wrote: >The "Applicability" section of the draft talks about why RI LSA is chosen >as the node-tag TLV carrier instead of TE LSA. > >The point I am trying make here is, if the link-color is carried in a TLV, >Node color could also be carried in TLV and we don't need a new LSA for >that. > >Rgds >Shraddha > >-----Original Message----- >From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 12:53 AM >To: Shraddha Hegde >Cc: Acee Lindem; Hannes Gredler; OSPF List; Rob Shakir; Harish Raghuveer >Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for >draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt > > >On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Shraddha Hegde wrote: > >> <Acee> Actually, I think separate LSAs is a better alternative. >> >> <Shraddha> Node-tag is a just another property of the node. OSPFv2/v3 >> have achieved the desired functionality using numerous link/node >>properties using TLVs in TE-LSA so I don't see an absolute necessity of >>going with a new LSA. > >Shraddha - If you think the Router-Information LSA is the same as the TE >LSA you have not read RFC 4970. > >Acee > > >> >> Rgds >> Shraddha >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Acee Lindem >> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 8:55 PM >> To: Hannes Gredler >> Cc: OSPF List; Rob Shakir; Harish Raghuveer >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for >> draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt >> >> >> On Oct 21, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 02:10:04PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote: >>> | >>> | On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote: >>> | >>> | On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:32:54PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote: >>> | | Hannes, >>> | | >>> | | On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote: >>> | | >>> | | > acee, >>> | | > >>> | | > why should we give an upper boundary on things which >>> | | > - might be subject to change and >>> | | > - which have a historic track record of being >>>underestimated. >>> | | >>> | | You don't have to - just request a separate OSPFv2 opaque LSA >>>and >>> | IPv6 OSPFv3 LSA from IANA. >>> | | Another alternative would be to extend the RI LSA to be multi- >>> | instance and relegate the variable length tags to an instance >>>other >>> | than instance 0. >>> | >>> | again the question why i do have to ? >>> | i can perfectly fit in single-digit as well as a few dozens of >>>colors >>> | in a single RI LSA >>> | - what is your concern - except that we may use inappropriate >>>large >>> | space for TE ? >>> | any reasonable implementation SHOULD restrict the node color >>>set, >>> | such >>> | that overwhelming the 64K of RI LSPs is not going to happen. >>> | >>> | We don't want a standard that leaves room for >>> | "unreasonable" implementations ;^). I think the policy in >>> | RFC 4970 is clear. Here is an >>> | excerpt: >>> >>> oh boy - i wish i could let the non-sense disappear just with good >>> standard docs ;-) - but i hear you - so all you're asking for is an >>> upper boundary ? - is 128 low enough to not scare you and be >>> compliant to the below paragraph. >> >> Actually, I think separate LSAs is a better alternative. >> >> >> >>> >>> | 3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability >>> | >>> | The purpose of the Router Information (RI) LSA is to advertise >>> | information relating to the aggregate OSPF router. Normally, this >>> | should be confined to TLVs with a single value or very few values. >>> | It is not meant to be a generic container to carry any and all >>> | information. The intent is to both limit the size of the RI LSA >>>to >>> | the point where an OSPF router will always be able to contain the >>> | TLVs in a single LSA and to keep the task of determining what has >>> | changed between LSA instances reasonably simple. Hence, >>>discretion >>> | and sound engineering judgment will need to be applied when >>>deciding >>> | whether newly proposed TLV(s) in support of a new application are >>> | advertised in the RI LSA or warrant the creation of an application >>> | specific LSA. >>> | >>> | >>> | Anyway, this hasn't even been presented or accepted as a WG >>>document. >>> >>> which is not a reason why we should not discuss how to iron out the >>>bumpy parts now. >> >> Right. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >>> >>> thanks ! >>> >>> /hannes >>> >>> | | > the 'per-link' admin-groups serve as a good example here: >>> | | > initially conceived as "you won't ever need more than >>> | 32" we have >>> | | > now arrived at a variable length (unbounded) extension. >>> | | > >>> | | > >>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-osborne-mpls-extended-admin- >>> | groups-00 >>> | | > >>> | | > for a humorous take to it, have a look at >>> | | > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1925 >>> | | > rule (9) and (10) >>> | | > >>> | | > /hannes >>> | | > >>> | | > On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>> | | > >>> | | >> Hi Shraddha, >>> | | >> Since the size of the tag data is unbounded, could you >>>either >>> | put it in a separate OSPFv2 opaque LSA and OSPFv3 LSA or limit >>>the >>> | size to some maximum number of tags, e.g., 16? >>> | | >> Thanks, >>> | | >> Acee >>> | | >> On Oct 21, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Shraddha Hegde wrote: >>> | | >> >>> | | >>> Hi All, >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> We have posted a draft on " Advertising per-node >>> | administrative tags in OSPF" and would like to hear your >>>views >>> | on it. Please feel free to raise any suggestion/comment on the >>> | content. >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> Rgds >>> | | >>> Shraddha >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> -----Original Message----- >>> | | >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet- >>> | drafts@ietf.org] >>> | | >>> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 4:24 PM >>> | | >>> To: Harish Raghuveer; Shraddha Hegde; British Telecom; >>>Hannes >>> | Gredler; Rob Shakir >>> | | >>> Subject: New Version Notification for >>>draft-hegde-ospf-node- >>> | admin-tag-00.txt >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> A new version of I-D, >>>draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt >>> | | >>> has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and >>>posted to >>> | the IETF repository. >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> Filename: draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag >>> | | >>> Revision: 00 >>> | | >>> Title: Advertising per-node administrative tags in OSPF >>> | | >>> Creation date: 2013-10-21 >>> | | >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> | | >>> Number of pages: 6 >>> | | >>> URL: >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- >>> | hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt >>> | | >>> Status: >>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde- >>> | ospf-node-admin-tag >>> | | >>> Htmlized: >>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-ospf- >>> | node-admin-tag-00 >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> Abstract: >>> | | >>> This document describes an extension to OSPF protocol >>>[RFC2328] >>> | to >>> | | >>> add an optional operational capability, that allows >>>tagging and >>> | | >>> grouping of the nodes in an OSPF domain. This allows >>> | | >>> simplification,ease of management and control over route >>>and >>> | path >>> | | >>> selection based on configured policies. >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> This document describes the protocol extensions to >>>disseminate >>> | per- >>> | | >>> node admin-tags to the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocols. >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> 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 >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> >>> | | >>> _______________________________________________ >>> | | >>> OSPF mailing list >>> | | >>> OSPF@ietf.org >>> | | >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> | | >> >>> | | >> _______________________________________________ >>> | | >> OSPF mailing list >>> | | >> OSPF@ietf.org >>> | | >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> | | >> >>> | | >> >>> | | > >>> | | > >>> | | >>> | | >>> | | >>> | >>> | >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> OSPF@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > > >
- [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification f… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Hannes Gredler
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notificati… Hannes Gredler