Re: [OSPF] Advertising S-BFD discriminators in OSPF

[Manav Bhatia <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

:-)

Lets not deal with analogies (my bad!) lest we get misled by those.

Clearly you and I look at RI LSAs differently. I dont think what youre
suggesting is even remotely preposterous. However, i do believe that
RIs can serve more than merely announcing OSPF specific router
capabilities.

And once again, we already have a precedent where RI was used for
announcing non OSPF specific capability -- which means that the
co-authors of this draft arent the only ones who think of RIs as being
a generic tool for router capability advertisement.

Lets hear what others have to say on this.

Cheers, Manav


On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Michael Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Manav,
>
> That's a pretty funny analogy. I've got another one for you.
>
> Say the RI LSA is like a corporate learjet for a tool company. When it gets
> flown around it's never full so you decide to use it to ship wrenches on it
> along with the executives. You're proud of your wrenches and want everyone
> to know how great they are, but do you really want to ship them that way?
> Maybe it's better to put the wrenches in their own vehicle.
>
> So to be a little more serious, if the router wants to proudly proclaim its
> S-BFD capability then it deserves its own special LSA rather than being
> packed into one used for other things.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
> On 09/25/2014 06:27 PM, Manav Bhatia wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Very interesting.
>>
>> I think there is a disconnect because of our interpretation of what an
>> RI LSA is envisioned to carry. I assume its meant to advertise
>> "optional router capabilities" while you believe its to be used solely
>> for advertising "optional OSPF router capabilities". IMO, limiting the
>> scope of RI to just OSPF is like using a humvee with all its bells and
>> whistles to distribute balloons to the children in your friendly
>> neighborhood park! We wanted a mechanism wherein each router could
>> proudly tell the world that it was an S-BFD capable node and along
>> with it also advertise the unique discriminator that the others would
>> use to reach it. RI we felt, was the perfect tool that we could use
>> for this purpose.
>>
>> And btw we're not the first ones to use RI for advertising a router
>> capability that isnt pertinent to OSPF per se (RFC 5088).
>>
>> Cheers, Manav
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Michael Barnes <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Manav,
>>>
>>> Perhaps I missed some earlier discussion, on why you decided to add the
>>> S-BFD Discriminator TLV to the RI LSA, but I would prefer it not be in
>>> that
>>> LSA. I would like to leave the RI LSA with only information pertinent to
>>> OSPF rather than pollute it with information for which OSPF has no
>>> interest.
>>> If you're concerned with a trend of creating a new Opaque type for every
>>> application which might want OSPF to carry information for it, then I
>>> would
>>> suggest we create a generic Application Information LSA.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2014 01:47 AM, Manav Bhatia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We had submitted the following draft a couple of weeks ago.
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-00.txt
>>>>
>>>> This draft introduces a new OSPF RI TLV that allows OSPF routers to
>>>> flood the S-BFD discriminator values in the routing domain.
>>>>
>>>> S-BFD is a new charter item (will be approved very soon) in the BFD WG.
>>>>
>>>> Would appreciate comments on this.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Manav
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OSPF mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>>
>>>
>> .
>>
>