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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 04 May 2017 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4BE1287A7 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 TelhmjR4j6q7 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 835D91200FC for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2017 13:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=109583; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493929649; x=1495139249; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=ZCKUUDUpr5D61l8aVk8SUBrxcvXgH6zP9WY1diqbuL8=; b=Nn1h0tC5SMeTMo3Co6y1GPY7tJZnr9l0CH5yCGvjJwHP+UhKuIN5sSHX y5ohzldzSLM73R7mqh9Zjxxwgpi0DlxoWKG5zuW+0TZSRXBHMq8djFRgE zdNn7lUTz4ocycuMYQPPchaPMw9+DDG9RzPHaSAaGqA2vZmXoXlsnD/l5 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ATAQDQjQtZ/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm5ngW4Hg2GKGJFWlW+CD4YkAhqEMz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDIwpAHAIBCBEDAQIhAQYDAgICMBQJCAIEExuKBbFUgiaKZwEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2IPAGDG4UDBoJggl8FnWUBkxSCBIU5iiqUNAEfOIEKbxV?= =?us-ascii?q?GhSiBSnaHdIENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,289,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217";a="420169765"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 May 2017 20:27:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v44KRSwv011433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2017 20:27:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 4 May 2017 16:27:27 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 4 May 2017 16:27:27 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
Thread-Index: AQHSxQanGGW4vWTLFUe0gcAxuCky/6Hkn50A
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:27:27 +0000
Message-ID: <D53106AD.ACBA9%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D530EF1D.ACB7C%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D530EF1D.ACB7C%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D53106ADACBA9aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/HHPOIkzjbfN8wZCDWHPW5lBXolE>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 04 May 2017 20:27:35 -0000

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 <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
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