Re: [OSPF] Comment on draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-01

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Sat, 20 February 2016 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218931B36BD for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:44:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.507
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.507 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=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5gACC0iSybuy for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54D881B2AAF for <>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:44:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5904; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455929082; x=1457138682; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=HFC9HTYj/qWNaiBCK1Es+U1lX9N8SB4xBIgWy6Ypnfs=; b=en5hDuRDIvV5LxMkfOBFoEMlaCAY4+ysopDVp4knmD2TvxdcJw54hQcW /RUhZR72qAUxsnP25mqvmcLq2sY+A273GtujWGdFIajp1+MEedZv6XuuR EmD4tfgAn284l8ET4j3gZg4m4cZkeBge+lwmDhqj+VSkK0lKT6CAGmAaw c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,473,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="240451129"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Feb 2016 00:44:41 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1K0ifiJ010945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:44:41 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:44:40 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:44:40 -0600
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Julien Meuric <>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Comment on draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-01
Thread-Index: AQHRaN7xjIo+aS0wwkCugeJWKKQ8MZ8x9c97gAIPQwA=
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:44:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: OSPF WG List <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Comment on draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:44:45 -0000

Hi Julien, 

On 2/18/16, 11:47 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Julien Meuric"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>Hi Peter,
>Feb. 17, 2016 -
>> Hi Julien,
>> On 2/16/16 18:24 , Julien Meuric wrote:
>>> Hi Pete,
>>> I believe the new text in the section 5 of the aforementioned I-D is a
>>> nice improvement for the specification (thank you Chris).
>>> However, the current version still says "TE will use the information in
>>> the TE Opaque LSA and the non-TE applications will use the information
>>> in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA". Then remote LFA joins the
>>> party, and I wonder if it is a "TE application" or not.
>> clearly it is not.
>[JM] OK
>>> As "there is no
>>> IETF specification documenting" what would strictly fall under "TE
>>> application" or "non-TE application", and even no real need to define a
>>> strict boundary, I consider that sentence as over-specification and
>>> suggest to jusst drop it.
>> LFA has nothing to do with TE, it's obvious.
>[JM] I tend to agree on that, though not fully on the "obvious".
>> And yes, we need a strict boundary between what is TE related and what
>> is not. If we don't define it, then every implementation can choose what
>> LSA to use, which would lead to the interoperability problems. The
>> purpose of this draft is to define a single mechanism to advertise link
>> attributes for non-TE applications.
>[JM] Yes, each application specification should state where among OSPF
>LSAs it gets these link parameters from. But it does not require to
>split application space between TE and non-TE:
>- applications per se should not be concerned about that split, this is
>protocol-related and should be addressed at the end of the specification
>chain (i.e., "this parameters is to be used for...", not "this use case
>falls into category X");
>- this is OSPF-specific: when considering IS-IS, this is not an issue;
>- the LFA example already contradicts the rule you suggest, tempering
>the backward compatibility text could avoid this situation.
>>> That would let applications themselves look
>>> for that information where relevant/specified, whether they
>>> philosophically feel like being TE or not.
>> TE application MUST only look at the TE Opaque LSA - that is specified
>> already.
>[JM] I would be cautious on "only". E.g., RFC 7770 can be applicable,
>though not TE.
>> Non-TE application SHOULD look at Extended Link LSA - that is what we
>> want to specify in this draft.
>[JM] I am still confused with this "TE/non-TE application" rough
>summary, but I think we could find an agreement by saying that opaque
>LSAs (including TE) are to be used by so-called "TE application", and
>that extended link LSA should be preferred by the others.
>>> What is more, I really think that the current wording  is too loose in
>>> "it is expected that the information in these LSA [sic] would be
>>> identical". I do not see the drawback of having full alignment of
>>> in case of duplication, but I see the operational risk of nightmare in
>>> case they are not. As a result, I suggest to rephrase into: "If the
>>> link attribute is advertised in both LSAs, the information in these
>>> MUST be identical."
>> given the OSPF protocol operation above can not be guaranteed. LSAs
>> arrive asynchronously and there can be intervals during which the
>> consistency of the information between two different LSAs can not be
>> guaranteed.
>[JM] We fully agree on that. To make sure this is not creating an
>ambiguity, you may rephrase as:
>"If the same link attribute is advertised in both LSAs, the information
>packed in these LSAs by advertising routers MUST be identical."

Are we sure on this? Today we can have an OSPF metric that is independent
of the OSPF TE Metric - why wouldn’t we want the same flexibility with


>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>> Cheers,
>>> Julien
>>> .
>OSPF mailing list