Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 05 July 2017 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 93076131569 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 12:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EWA3fIksGEq2 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x233.google.com (mail-pg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8936C12EC55 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x233.google.com with SMTP id k14so53321279pgr.0 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0CSrLS3/5kM7hvBVryr/bdlU+D25VjON/ghwmZ8rI7w=; b=gmSAR9J0gQwBvrU8EmbUO0DwYVdqMPDJtHpGv5nD97PELMCfkj7qsz3Hj+iypaLnaQ YYCjyUWEXZE5LguLR90jH/l5OUuMR43PZGYGP+OtCCwBSPwHqhN21f66be2A19lzDt1U LbaTszhfetMP5Bgi6GXHUse9M+ik9+kc0sqXSbwcMx0JZA2an6ep9DhEwOEn89TO7vT7 8aJolohXaAuThQMuAZumtNAFCErhjKs+3NFE/NDH6a4xxEFuAXTtmNVKUfiGfqqQfQjy COAhsdXhe6WTG00a9X98Bp9/VTqYZ1gGHt1THxJ2wIhGG9yUK2dLn107cH8ndY+GjrHQ zVRA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0CSrLS3/5kM7hvBVryr/bdlU+D25VjON/ghwmZ8rI7w=; b=Z5nY6HtfJQPNnQwUK+zEPMdT4fZafKXJgBLKgHnHH6YwDFgmCFeLLvZYz6PSfx7dLI jHuq65vRCH9cSgZoB20WZ3UU2QEh75kmzhcSkrQB4l2cb7QLwj4UlFhGv1bRab6r1c7C 4OoQOuHo+HL7LGXRKA824+JPxuogDPuMmqkveUWJkbxfG6L56RB07Qz0/PkjqB0ck97w gHHUEAPl4SAdeKVxRjpgdIh13NRAKSzKy67gDzI8FX23Q0J8kRdJIxNC7b34iUY/Dv7q AtauAyo+MRvU9UPxK9Q8dyJJfcT9to1wTp8Vxhwd8i701Xfl92psGQcIoMwmlQL0engJ sISg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1125ArrIolf9w/IlSIE1tE0R6w6OsnMqtSEepjqtTfO7G5tvOMbR io1saE4m4PWC6dKJpkc=
X-Received: by 10.98.211.140 with SMTP id z12mr22401006pfk.231.1499283101675; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 12:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:fb90:662b:f383:9467:c34a:863e:c307? ([2607:fb90:662b:f383:9467:c34a:863e:c307]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w85sm65298082pfj.115.2017.07.05.12.31.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Jul 2017 12:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-D309B0D9-4D59-4BE5-A3B0-604591C3FE8F
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14F89)
In-Reply-To: <D5829AD9.B721C%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 12:31:38 -0700
Cc: Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com>, "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <balagane@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <07D0BDEA-7DE2-4CA8-B153-B91C420A695B@gmail.com>
References: <D56C3D71.B5516%acee@cisco.com> <55cc5c59a333478a8af746881e5ac49a@XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com> <VI1PR07MB10716CE25F81A1A41886F26C91D40@VI1PR07MB1071.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <D5829AD9.B721C%acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/1j3gJlPtRILhudQLkAq0wG1Hpc4>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:31:44 -0000

Hi,

I find Acee's proposal reasonable and support it "as is".

Regards,
Jeff

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 10:36, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chao, 
> 
> I think rules (e) 1 and (e) 2 should remain to handle the case of an NSSA that receives both the intra-NSSA LSA and a translated AS External LSA (via a backbone path). I only think that rule (e) 3 needs to be relaxed. If we were doing another NSSA BIS,  I’d remove it completely but since we are just talking about an Errata, I think we should just make the Router ID tie-breaker optional. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> From: Chao Fu <chao.fu@ericsson.com>
> Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 3:02 AM
> To: "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <balagane@cisco.com>om>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
> Subject: RE: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> In my opinion rule (e) should be removed. ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=ospf&q=%5BTechnical+Errata+Reported%5D+RFC3101 ).
> If not, it should be clarified more including removing “2. A Type-5 LSA.”
>  
> Regards,
> Chao Fu
>  
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Balaji Ganesh (balagane)
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 14:01
> To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>rg>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> Any views/comments on the below?
>  
> Regards,
> Balaji
>  
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) 
> Sent: 19 June 2017 00:08
> To: Balaji Ganesh (balagane) <balagane@cisco.com>om>; OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
>  
> Hi –  I encouraged Balaji to post to the list is that I think many implementations have ignored #3. I know that I changed the IBM implementation to compute ECMP routes to multiple ASBRs and had the Redback implementation do this from the start. Consequently, we’d like to solicit input as to what other implementations do. If we can reach consensus on this, we could issue an Errata to make this optional. 
>  
> Thanks,
> Acee 
>  
> From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <balagane@cisco.com>
> Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:13 AM
> To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> When the metrics are same, RFC 3101 specifies the preference for NSSA/External routes as follows.
> In the section 2.5 Calculating Type-7 AS External Routes - 2.5.6.(e), it says..
>  
>           (e) If the current LSA is functionally the same as an
>               installed LSA (i.e., same destination, cost and non-zero
>               forwarding address) then apply the following priorities in
>               deciding which LSA is preferred:
>  
>                  1. A Type-7 LSA with the P-bit set.
>  
>                  2. A Type-5 LSA.
>  
>                  3. The LSA with the higher router ID.  
>  
>  
> Points 1 and 2 are clear..
>  
> However Point 3 specifies preference of an LSA with a higher router ID. Why is it so?
>  
> Should we not install ECMP paths in this case?
> Is point 3 actually intended for NSSA translators to prefer a Type 7 LSA which needs to be used for translation to Type 5?
>  
> Considering the above 2 points, I guess point 3 needs to be modified in the RFC to probably say..
>  
>                     3. Preference is same, install ECMP paths.
>                        Additionally if the router is an NSSA translator, prefer the LSA with higher router ID for Type 7-Type 5 translation. 
>  
> Please let know any views/comments on the same.
>  
> Regards,
> Balaji
>  
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf