IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] OSPF Operator-Defined TLVs (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-01.txt)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 27 October 2015 06:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 E00BB1B366D for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 olrQ_sdx7APK for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-nor35.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5522E1B366C for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 55C40C013D; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:54:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.17]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 30F471A0060; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:54:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM24.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a1e6:3e6a:1f68:5f7e%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:54:08 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OSPF Operator-Defined TLVs (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-01.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHRCqzYT+PSKWZbDkygrQxSvdVsap5+8oDw
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:54:07 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C87A0B@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <D24ACB18.36F88%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D24ACB18.36F88%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/CTt1_fe7oN_RRbN2OW6QDevBZGc>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Operator-Defined TLVs (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-01.txt)
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:54:12 -0000

Hi Acee, all, 

I support this draft. (I'm co-author)

The proposed approach allows to disseminate information that is deployment-specific without overloading IANA to maintain specific registries. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Acee Lindem (acee)
> Envoyé : lundi 19 octobre 2015 22:29
> À : OSPF WG List
> Objet : [OSPF] OSPF Operator-Defined TLVs (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-
> chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-01.txt)
> 
> This draft has been presented at two IETFs and while I don’t agree with
> some of the proposed use cases as these applications reference should, if
> fact, be standardized, I can see that the use case for local applications
> could be compelling. This is the use where OSPF provides an API for local
> applications to advertise application-specific information throughout the
> routing domain and receive the same parameters from other routers running
> that application. Since this is to support local applications generically,
> one could see the reason to allow non-standard parameters to be flooded
> opaquely (i.e., OSPF is used solely as a flooding mechanism).
> 
> Please take a look at the draft and indicate whether or not you feel the
> OSPF WG should work on such a solution. If there is enough interest, we
> will adopt it as a WG document.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email