Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-02
Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@DATACONNECTION.COM> Fri, 23 July 2004 09:27 UTC
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04244 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:27:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (209.119.0.2) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <10.00E23E10@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 5:27:30 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 27175901 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:27:28 -0400
Received: from 192.91.191.8 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:17:28 -0400
Received: by beiderbecke.datcon.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <PNL6CW02>; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:17:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-ID: <53F74F5A7B94D511841C00B0D0AB16F80DC285@baker.datcon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:17:16 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@DATACONNECTION.COM>
Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-02
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Authors I have some comments on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-02. I have divided these into * suggested changes to the advertising of stable addresses * suggested change to the value used as the Link State ID * points requiring clarification * minor editorial points. Could you please consider these comments and let me know * in which cases you will update the draft as suggested * in which cases you can correct my understanding. Suggested Changes to the Advertising of Stable Addresses -------------------------------------------------------- The "Node Address TLV" and the "Router IPv6 Address TLV" are both defined to provide a stable IP address of the advertising router that is always reachable. I think that only one TLV to define a stable IP address is required. Furthermore, the Node Address TLV, as defined in draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr, does not appear to be suitable for advertising a stable address as there is no way of defining which of any included addresses are stable. I suggest the following modifications. * Only the "Router IPv6 Address TLV" is defined for advertising a stable address. * The Node Address TLV is defined as an optional TLV to provide additional local addresses of the router. * The Node Address TLV section is moved to after the Link TLV section as it is of reduced importance. _Suggested Change to the Value Used as the Link State ID_ I do not think that the interface ID of the link is suitable for use as the Link State ID of the Intra-Area-TE-LSA. In particular, it is not suitable for the Link State ID of the single Intra-Area-TE-LSA containing the Router IPv6 Address TLV advertised by a router as this Link State ID must be different to all Link State IDs used for Intra-Area-TE-LSAs containing Link TLVs. I suggest using an arbitrary value with no topological significance as the Link State ID for Intra-Area-TE-LSAs, in a similar manner to LSA IDs in RFC3630 (Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2). Points requiring Clarification ------------------------------ * Section 2. This section is entitled "Node Address TLV" but refers to draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr which defines a "Node Attribute TLV". Should references to "Node Address TLV" be changed to read "Node Attribute TLV"? * Section 4.2. The Neighbor ID replaces the OSPFv2 TE Link ID to identify the remote end of a link. The Link ID is mandatory in OSPFv2 TE. I think that Neighbor ID should be mandatory in OSPFv3 TE. I suggest adding paragraph defining which sub-TLVs are mandatory for OSPFv3 support. For example: "The Neighbor ID sub-TLV is mandatory for OSPFv3 Traffic Engineering support, that is, it MUST appear exactly once in a Link TLV. All other sub-TLVs defined here MAY occur at most once in a Link TLV." * Section 4.4. This section correctly states that link-local addresses should not be contained in this sub-TLV. I suggest adding a sentence stating that IPv6 addresses advertised by the neighbor in Link-LSAs as 128-bit prefixes with the LA-bit set MAY be included. * Section 5. In RFC3630, it is defined that an LSA contains one and only one top-level TLV. Is this also the case for the Intra-Area-TE-LSA? * Section 5. For clarity, the draft could provide more details on Intra-Area-TE-LSA format. That is, specify o a diagram giving the format of the standard OSPFv3 LSA header that is used o the TLV format, presumably as defined in RFC3630. * RFC3630 states that unnumbered links are not supported. Is this also the case in this draft? Minor editorial points ---------------------- * Suggest adding a "Terms" section referencing RFC2119. * Section 1, paragraph 2. Typo "applicabilty". * Section 1, paragraph 3. Typo "TLV" instead of "TLVs". * Section 2, paragraph 1. o Suggest "This satisfies the requirements of the Traffic Engineering computation". o Instead of "This satisfy requirements of Traffic Engineering computation". * Section 2, paragraph 1. o Suggest "In OSPFv3 TE, the Node Address TLV MUST be supported". o Instead of "In OSPFv3 TE, node address must be supported". * Section 3, paragraph 1. Suggest current tense instead of "will advertise". * Section 3, paragraph 2. Typo "extentions". * Section 4, paragraph 1. o Suggest "consists of a set of...". o Instead of "consists a set of...". * Section 4, sub-TLV description. o Suggest "(16N octets, where N is the number of IPv6 addresses)". o Instead of "(16N octets)". * Section 4.1, paragraph 1. o Suggest "In OSPFv3, the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be sent and MUST be ignored upon receipt". o Instead of "In OSPFv3, The Link ID sub-TLV should not be sent and should be ignored upon receipt". * Section 4.3, paragraph 1. o Suggest "If there are multiple local addresses assigned to the link then they MAY all be listed in this sub-TLV. Link-local scope addresses MUST NOT be included in this sub-TLV". o Instead of "If there are multiple local addresses on the link, they are all listed in this sub-TLV. Link-local address should not be included in this sub-TLV". * Section 4.3, paragraph 2 and section 4.4, paragraph 2. As the preceding paragraph has, correctly, stated that link-local addresses should not be included, I suggest deleting ", and contains the link's local addresses" to avoid possible confusion. * Section 4.4, paragraph 1. o Suggest "If the link type is multi-access, the Remote Interface IPv6 Address MAY be set to ::. Alternatively, an implementation MAY choose not to send this sub-TLV". o Instead of "If the Link Type is multi-access, the Remote Interface IPv6 Address is set to ::." * Section 4.4, paragraph 1. o Suggest "Link-local scope addresses MUST NOT be included in this sub-TLV". o Instead of "Link-local address should not be included in this sub-TLV". Please let me know if you have any questions on any of the above. Regards Alan ------------------------------------ Alan Davey Data Connection Ltd Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 Fax: +44 20 8363 1039 Email: Alan.Davey@dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com
- Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-02 Alan Davey
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-02 Acee Lindem
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-02 Jon Berger
- Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-02 Acee Lindem