Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Thu, 17 March 2016 04:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A57B12DAEF for <>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SMSMXygkGtMi for <>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 388A112DB2F for <>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2866; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1458189632; x=1459399232; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=C3V83Y5ivAXoedu4RWnDuRSjRj98klZf9V7BOKE3CNs=; b=MQ430fAATYCXVJhCM1duXd36UfRHqPGpswslXY1/ilXsC8eXiJVKkEfH F+fQjjIe6dj9m+uC5puIU6ICpaHMFwHeSABQf6cv/6IT5sgemJ9bs7JAi 30zBp1GQADD3ACSVPIv5ij+MD000HfucG2vgU8mOQBqulm7Nmt/TVm+pr k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,348,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="83653292"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Mar 2016 04:40:31 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2H4eVMl026810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:40:31 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:40:30 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:40:30 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, OSPF WG List <>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
Thread-Index: AQHRf/Ho6WRxQA5zQE2bUJRokiTbP59dC0kg
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:40:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:40:35 -0000

My opinion of the draft has not changed.

It is defining a way to utilize OSPF to send application information - which is not something the protocol should be used to do.
Further, it leaves definition of the new codepoints and formats of the information advertised completely unspecified - the latest draft revision states:

" The meaning of the operator-defined sub-TLV is totally opaque to OSPF
   and is defined by the network local policy and is controlled via
   configuration.  "

How interoperability is achieved is not addressed at all.

IS-IS has taken a much more stringent approach to a similar request. 	
RFC 6823 (GENAPP) requires that information sent in the generic container TLV MUST be based on a public specification - and that an application specific ID for the application using this mechanism be assigned by IANA. This addresses the interoperability issue.
GENAPP further specifies that such information SHOULD be advertised by a separate instance of the routing protocol (as specified in RFC 6822(MI)) so as to minimize the impact of the application information flooding on the performance of the routing protocol.

Without addressing both of these issues I cannot support the draft.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:09 PM
> To: OSPF WG List
> Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile
> Service Deployment"
> We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it seems like a
> useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between OSPF and user
> and third-party applications to convey application-specific information
> learned from other OSPF routers. In many respects, this has already been
> envisioned for OSPF Node Tags. Please indicate your opinion on this draft
> before March 31st, 2016.
> Thanks,
> Acee
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list