Re: [OSPF] Follow-up discussion on draft-zzhang-ospf-two-part-metric

"Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net> Thu, 02 October 2014 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <zzhang@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72A11A1A9A for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fb_h5kTwuOd8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0746.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:746]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 754AF1A1A64 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2PR05MB661.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.221.12) by BY2PR05MB760.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.224.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1024.12; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:42:33 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.16) by BY2PR05MB661.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.221.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1039.15; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:42:32 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.234]) by BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.234]) with mapi id 15.00.1044.008; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:42:32 +0000
From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Follow-up discussion on draft-zzhang-ospf-two-part-metric
Thread-Index: Ac+lGUvqIiqLTqfBSei7UevvhvhHhQADWYKADlJm8kA=
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:42:31 +0000
Message-ID: <18267bfa69094e108546bb9812c5ee6c@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <430a54c738e844e68deb26e7eaae2082@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <53CD7F3F.308@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53CD7F3F.308@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR05MB661;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 03524FBD26
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(6009001)(377454003)(479174003)(199003)(189002)(41574002)(13464003)(24454002)(51704005)(19580395003)(86362001)(10300001)(74316001)(106356001)(50986999)(76176999)(85306004)(120916001)(54356999)(15975445006)(2656002)(76482002)(80022003)(122386001)(46102003)(97736003)(76576001)(101416001)(99396003)(230783001)(19580405001)(33646002)(85852003)(15202345003)(108616004)(99286002)(77096002)(20776003)(66066001)(92566001)(105586002)(4396001)(95666004)(2501002)(21056001)(107046002)(31966008)(87936001)(64706001)(24736002)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB661; H:BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/6eFyGZPqihwLsfO57428TMfF164
Cc: "vibhor.julka@l-3Com.com" <vibhor.julka@l-3Com.com>, "Dave.Dubois@gdc4s.com" <Dave.Dubois@gdc4s.com>, "tom.mcmillan@l-3com.com" <tom.mcmillan@l-3com.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Follow-up discussion on draft-zzhang-ospf-two-part-metric
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:43:02 -0000

Peter, and all,

I have posted a new revision, which uses the following to encode the from-network metric.

> 1. OSPFv2: Extended Link LSA
> 2. OSPFv3: E-Router LSAs

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zzhang-ospf-two-part-metric-03.txt

Please review and comment.

Thanks!
Jeffrey


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:00 PM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; ospf@ietf.org
> Cc: vibhor.julka@l-3Com.com; Dave.Dubois@gdc4s.com; tom.mcmillan@l-
> 3com.com
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] Follow-up discussion on draft-zzhang-ospf-two-part-
> metric
> 
> Hi Jeffrey,
> 
> please see inline:
> 
> 
> On 7/21/14 15:24 , Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In today's OSPF session there were mainly two questions/comments
> during my presentation:
> >
> > 1. Acee: more discussion on mailing list about whether this is a
> general problem/solution that the WG should be taking on
> > 2. Peter: should we use OSPFv3 Extended LSA for a cleaner encoding
> 
> my comment was not specific to OSPFv3.
> I propose to use following extensions to encode metric from DR to
> attached router:
> 
> 1. OSPFv2: Extended Link LSA
> 2. OSPFv3: E-Router LSAs
> 
> >
> > I want to repeat and add some comments/answers here as a starting
> point for more discussions on the mailing list.
> >
> > For #1:
> >
> > - The described problem is real for some large scale and mission
> critical networks
> > - The problem and solution are not only applicable to the above
> mentioned example network, but also general to any broadcast network
> that have different costs between different pair of routers. As long as
> the router-to-router costs can be presented as a to-network and a from-
> network part, then the simple solution applies
> > - The two-part-metric concept is a natural extension of the SPF graph
> theory - we're just changing the previously zero from-network cost to
> none-zero.
> >
> > For #2, there are pros and cons with each approach.
> >
> > - The stub-link based approach does not depend on the in-progress LSA
> Extensibility work. This has larger impact on implementation - the
> feature can be supported w/o big changes to support extended LSA format.
> 
> though the stub-link approach is simpler to implement, it's a bit of a
> "hack", as you are using a standard encoding for a stub link to
> advertise a metric for a neighbor on a broadcast link.
> 
> > - The LSA Extensibility work is only applicable for OSPFv3. That means
> OSPFv2 would need a different approach for the problem. Acee also
> mentioned that it would be good to have consistent approaches between
> OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
> 
> what I proposed is consistent - uses new extended LSAs in both OSPFv2
> and OSPFv3.
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> > - As a result at this time we would prefer the stub-link approach.
> >
> > The authors would like to hear more of your opinions/suggestions.
> Hopefully we can reach consensus on the applicability of the problem &
> solution so that it can become a WG item, and choose the best encoding
> approach.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Jeffrey
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OSPF mailing list
> > OSPF@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >