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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
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 39C121A6FF9 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 vm0StvBSCwWo for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E9501A6FDE for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1312; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409060732; x=1410270332; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=W7Fy42vH2pLTa6d9Exz+ANxFYFRSA+wDtPzGkCFgxMg=; b=euxX9bqH0FFjdgueC0GcsXMGjUUQ6H3V4DI5htoEo2ev1X1Ex/iSKO8+ v7Ib/Op+8F/IkKO3IK9wFO4LWxDfx6xNhBoul+kKmg4p3AfZpr7sJOfJY H2yPMR9t21V3C6JmCmCmBx3Pri12uPsiIY170uPLCvnsD3Tjgz9cxsQvB c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFALaO/FOtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagw1TVwTMRwqHTQGBExZ3hAQBAQQBAQFrGwIBCBguJwslAgQBEohCDb5iEwSPU4RMBYpmhkCLI5UMg15sgUiBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,404,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="72433518"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 13:45:31 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QDjVMZ006219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:45:31 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:45:31 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvi248AgAAb4AA=
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:45:31 +0000
Message-ID: <D022049C.2295%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <409419B3A539CC45AE4CA801D13837B3@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/9LxrVw0cwTy7tqsCULoWv_7O89E
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
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: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:45:36 -0000

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.
Thanks,
Acee 

On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com> 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
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf