Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Fri, 05 February 2016 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@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 114101B3699 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:41:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 tnuGUDqSkhil for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0129.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE1CD1B3696 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:41:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.107.139) by BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.107.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.396.15; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 06:41:06 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.107.139]) by BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.107.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0396.020; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 06:41:06 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"
Thread-Index: AQHRWFgewM560Duk50miRiNskkIPz58dB6Rg
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 06:41:05 +0000
Message-ID: <BY1PR0501MB138192A6BC17ECBB36296BA3D5D20@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D2CD0B6B.4ADAA%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D2CD0B6B.4ADAA%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.14]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY1PR0501MB1381; 5:zUoA4gBICEj/vYry9PUhe17MN1x5OcfN24U9lNhM5XOOedNBrIYZmQ99JUka0h9W7laYYBAh7ZOaW5LxAtTziVWZNTkKu9g0xPkaM+IQYNWPQhcBx6qTmJEL1TYoJqn3doIBpxL59oXu2JaM40CWQA==; 24:x11CX+ynx+8eeizuKGYxvIGsJCxxk/f0e3KaiCqBzy01pJT8HdUMa6tFRivPht3b7g3sOc8n/ioWsKF63NwWgvSUMccgM9KLJLifMaFP/5Y=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1381;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ed89b6a1-076b-4836-7d76-08d32df752e9
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY1PR0501MB1381B37F5519D2EDBEC92265D5D20@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1381; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1381;
x-forefront-prvs: 0843C17679
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(13464003)(164054003)(5001770100001)(3280700002)(87936001)(86362001)(2906002)(3660700001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(189998001)(106116001)(50986999)(54356999)(74316001)(5003600100002)(2950100001)(5002640100001)(1220700001)(40100003)(10400500002)(102836003)(3846002)(586003)(15975445007)(6116002)(66066001)(1096002)(107886002)(11100500001)(33656002)(2900100001)(5004730100002)(5008740100001)(92566002)(5001960100002)(76176999)(122556002)(77096005)(76576001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1381; H:BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Feb 2016 06:41:05.6671 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1381
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/8k64Vol_nJPDoX1_hZkTR3cRtvA>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"
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: <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, 05 Feb 2016 06:41:11 -0000

Hi,

I have a few concerns on the necessity of this draft.

1.  Necessity of protocol change
The draft proposes to add the default route as part of router LSA but it is not clear why this is required.
The draft in sec 5.2 vaguely talks about without clarifying the real issue

"We are introducing a new type of default route with a local behavior.
   The current use of default route as type 3 or as type 5 cannot solve
   some of the use cases and more specifically in the Data center
   topologies."

If the spoke nodes are connecting only to the HUB (which is what hub and spoke topology is)then there is no way spoke would be learning OSPF routes 
from other than the HUB. It doesn't look necessary to advertise default routes in route LSAs

2. The draft doesn't talk about the other possible hub and spoke topologies like hierarchical hub and spoke,
      Multiple interfaces connecting to one Hub, A group of spoke nodes connecting to hub etc.  There should be a section on topology
      Restrictions to identify what topologies this draft intends to support.

3.  The draft proposes to advertise router-capability for this feature but it is not clear how this information is used. 
       
4. The draft talks in-length about the normal LSA and modified LSA but it is not clear how to distinguish between the two.

5. The document uses first person language in many places which is not appropriate for an internet draft.

6. I am in agreement with Anton on the p2mp use case which is completely missed from the draft

IMHO, the draft needs more work before being adopted by WG.


Rgds
Shraddha



-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 10:09 PM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"

This draft was has gone through some refinements after being presented in Hawaii and in Yokohama there was some support of this protocol extension.
Here is a URL for you convenience.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raza-ospf-stub-neighbor/

Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG Document. The WG Adoption call will end in 2 weeks.

Thanks,
Acee


_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf