Re: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Topology Transparent Zone"

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 06 February 2016 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 68A571B30FE; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:31:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 eD_SYLXeNyrl; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:31:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3F9F1B30FA; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:31:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2350; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454718702; x=1455928302; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=wmDAXG2czwsaoNVth1XYvfZscmhjujMbDzghjGu7B9w=; b=Bfx3FRAZYlQQDQ1If2s3wgFOHO6va6hmZEViTwGfS53S3f/KG3Ml/G2y IXHXBdHtqGD55A0d1Md+W5kEE+Nm71OqgzSm82PJFLbjEptCRCggLFFgW ryWJ1C4ZZfjfy0VtEVGAo85q8lLhZ2a1cG7Zxnw6Sd4Vd/yKOEmdkqksg I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AfAgCZPrVW/5xdJa1egzpSXw4GiFWxC?= =?us-ascii?q?wENgWYXCoVsAhyBEjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhEIBAQQBAQEaBhE6GwIBCBoCJgICAiU?= =?us-ascii?q?LFRACBAESiBsOsGCOXAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBHuJToQwgwKBOgWHX?= =?us-ascii?q?YZ5iB8BhUuIBIFbjRiKbINRAR4BAUKDZGqHJnwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,403,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="74349163"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2016 00:31:41 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u160Vf5q004394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 6 Feb 2016 00:31:42 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:31:41 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 19:31:40 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ttz@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ttz@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Topology Transparent Zone"
Thread-Index: AQHRYHW/MJTVOGEtVkKgqufySKu+3A==
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 00:31:40 +0000
Message-ID: <D2DAA394.4BC86%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D2C1642E.4A075%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D2C1642E.4A075%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: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3C26822A181C8441B29E21C00463F9C2@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ICbDm85tlekh6pH3rXXEVdu3SYI>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Working Group Last Call for "OSPF Topology Transparent Zone"
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: Sat, 06 Feb 2016 00:31:44 -0000

The WG Last Call has ended. I do have a couple minor comments.

   1. Section 1 list the advantages for setting up an LSP over a TTZ as
opposed 
      to an area. The details of this are not described in the document so
this 
      should either be removed or the document should explicitly state the
details
      of LSP setup are out of scope.

   2. In section 11.2, I can see some race conditions if different TTZ
status is 
      configured on different routers in the TTZ during the
migration/rollback 
      period. This is addressed by saying a warning message will be issued
if 
      this occurs. How is this detected and will the conflicting operation
be 
      rejected? 

   3. I guess one misconfigured router (no TTZ ID configured) will keep
migration 
      to TTZ from occurring. What happens if a misconfigured router is
introduced 
      on a broadcast link? Do all routers on the link revert to non-TTZ
operation? 

I also have a number of editorial comments but will send those offline.

Thanks,
Acee 


On 1/17/16, 3:30 PM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
<ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com> wrote:

>This is the start of the WG last call for the “OSPF Topology Transparent
>Zone” protocol extensions draft. We’ve had a number of discussions on this
>and Huawei has a prototype implementation. The WG last call will end at
>12:00 AM PDT on February 1st, 2016. For your convenience, here is a URL:
>
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ttz/
>
>Thanks,
>Acee and Abhay 
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf