Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shraddha,

From: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, May 5, 2017 at 2:05 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, OSPF WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

Acee,

>Additionally, there is the undesirable side effect of TE LSAs resulting in inclusion in the TE topology for multiple >implementations


The testing results on 3 implementation shows that local/remote interface ID in TE Opaque LSA does not result into links getting included in TE topology. Pls refer introduction section of draft draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-02.

This is an IS-IS draft. I don’t see the relevance.

RFC 4203 defines Link local scope TE-Opaque LSA to carry the interface-id and a remote ingress node would not be adding links to TE-Topology based on these link local LSAs simply because they would never see them.

This is probably the case for link-local scoped TE LSAs. I wouldn’t expect any other implementation to have used the link-local scoped TE LSAs for any purpose.

Thanks,
Acee


Rgds
Shraddha

From: OSPF [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 1:57 AM
To: OSPF WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

Speaking as a WG member:

I believe we should move forward with this simple mechanism for OSPFv2 neighbors to learn each other’s interface ID. Both IS-IS and, more importantly, OSPFv3 learn the interface ID via their respective hello mechanisms. Just because one implementation has repurposed the Generalized MPL (GMPL) extensions described in RFC 4302 for interface ID learning is not a reason to preclude using the more generally accepted IGP Hello packet learning. Additionally, there is the undesirable side effect of TE LSAs resulting in inclusion in the TE topology for multiple implementations.

Finally, when the right technical direction is clear and there is rough consensus, the OSPF WG MUST NOT be obstructed.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
To: OSPF WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"


This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment that a solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption and we are now doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your support or objection by May 20th, 2017.

Thanks,
Acee