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

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes,

On 8/26/14 17:32 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
> hi peter,
>
> 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.

If we instead define a capability bit which would mean "PQ candidate", 
we would avoid (2).

>
> 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.

thanks,
Peter

>
> HTH,
>
> /hannes
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:30:26PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
> | Hi Acee,
> |
> | On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> | >Hi Peter,
> | >This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
> | >respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
> | >draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
> | >advertisement for popular applications.
> |
> | sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote LFA
> | tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best approach
> | for.
> |
> | thanks,
> | Peter
> |
> | >Thanks,
> | >Acee
> | >
> | >On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> | >
> | >>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> | >>>There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
> | >>>advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
> | >>>remote-LFA eligibility.
> | >>
> | >>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
> | >>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
> | >>the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
> | >>to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
> | >>
> | >>thanks,
> | >>Peter
> | >>
> | >>>
> | >>>Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
> | >>>OSPF WG document.
> | >>>
> | >>>Thanks,
> | >>>Acee
> | >>>
> | >>>
> | >>>_______________________________________________
> | >>>OSPF mailing list
> | >>>[e-mail]
> | >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> | >>>
> | >>
> | >>_______________________________________________
> | >>OSPF mailing list
> | >>[e-mail]
> | >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> | >
> | >.
> | >
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | OSPF mailing list
> | [e-mail]
> | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> .
>