Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse
tte@cs.fau.de Fri, 07 July 2017 23:16 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 170D9126D73 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.713
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.713 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kwNB_v_qVAjM for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 154071200C1 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.77]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0812F58C4AE for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 01:16:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id D8ADCB0C4FD; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 01:16:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 01:16:03 +0200
From: tte@cs.fau.de
To: ospf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170707231603.GN17865@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/3Wb3xe-_gN-r767WCT8C9DD5vvY>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse
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: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 23:16:10 -0000
+1 Support adoption of this work. Technical detail looks good. Suggestion: This doc reads a bit like a suspense novel where you only understand in the 4th act why this should be a standard and what its scope is. Would suggest to make abstract/intro more crisp wrt the salient points: 1. There is ongoing work and DEMAND to build non-TE apps using the same attributes as invented by TE 2. Multiple applications will need the same attributes but with different values. 3. This doc reviews attributes, use-cases & options and STANDARDIZES that multi-application encoding 4. Standardized processing for these attributes outside TE is subject to ongoing/future work. Would also suggest considering putting "Multi-Application (encoding or reuse)" into the title Cheers Toerless On 7/7/17, 10:22, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com> wrote: OSPF Evolution and the role of draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse The document draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-05.txt not-only provides flexible and compact mechanisms and encodings for advertising link attributes for single or multiple applications. It is also part of the wider goal of transforming OSPF to a TLV-based protocol that is every bit as extendable as the other IGPs while affording the distinct advantage of optimally partitioning the advertised information into multiple LSAs of different types. This draft represents the last piece of our vision to achieve this outcome. For OSPFv2, we have the base LSAs that cannot be extended in a backward compatible fashion. Additionally, we have RFC 7770 (OSPF Router Information Advertisement) and RFC 7684 (OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes). The former has been extended to support distribution of non-OSPF information in addition to OSPF Router-level protocol information. The extended OSPF Prefix/Link LSAs are being used to support segment routing and other technologies. They are now part of the OSPF base and will be advertised in many OSPF domains. The major implementations have the capability to correlate the base LSAs and the OSPF Prefix/Link LSAs for segment routing. This correlation requires handling lots of chicken and egg complexities that have all been overcome. It has been suggested that since the OSPF TE LSAs (RFC 3630) contain some generally useful link attributes, this be the only means by which this information is advertised in OSPF routing domains. This will be both unwieldy and inefficient due to the advertisement, processing, and storage of the TE LSAs in networks not utilizing RSVP-based TE. There is also the added complexity with this approach as you have not only the chicken and the egg, but the chicken, egg, and the rooster to correlate. For OSPFv3 and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14.txt), we have made the difficult choice to extend the base RFC 5340 LSAs (OSPF for IPv6) in a non-compatible fashion. After an initial delay, we have implementations of the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs draft and will soon be advancing it. With the OSPFv3 extended LSAs, we are finally at the point where all the information (other than RSVP TE information) for a given prefix or link is advertised in a single LSA rather than multiple LSAs. Would those who argue for making OSPFv2 TE LSAs generally applicable also want to require the advertisement of RFC 5329 (OSPFv3 Traffic Engineering) LSAs? If so, we would miss a tremendous opportunity. Thanks, Acee On 7/6/17, 6:10 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com> wrote: >Support as co-author. More to come??? >Acee > >On 7/3/17, 2:37 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Abhay Roy (akr)" ><ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of akr@cisco.com> wrote: > >>We would like to kick-off a poll for WG adoption of the following >>document (per Authors request): >> >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse >> >>Please let us know if you support or have concerns with OSPF WG adopting >>this work. >> >>Regards, >>-Abhay >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-ospf-te… Abhay Roy
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Keyur Patel
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Naiming Shen (naiming)
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… tte
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Huaimo Chen
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Qin Wu
- [OSPF] 答复: WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Xuxiaohu
- Re: [OSPF] 答复: WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [OSPF] 答复: WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak… Peter Psenak
- Re: [OSPF] WG adoption poll for draft-ppsenak-osp… Abhay Roy