[OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 26 October 2015 00:08 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED7F1B33C9; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zojEVjKTza8q; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBB681B33C6; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1286; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1445818092; x=1447027692; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=cAxq+OAnQW6oSeJWQqF+YRHymBr1JkSqnL+qk7+iaho=; b=XaDlOGjBQ0wyN3yN0/s+oqoIpNMUgGqiSDq/s6EIdmPyjzR7juzOzEpD Fvnbe9OnDTDFQN8AoeBqKmtGjsQlOhLEdiy5P/aN4ntgoE7Fsce5fsZoX 2jxfv6YMf9On7T9d0QoYEBHWV9d0nT6fwy23BH+BDevFn/sWbEAbtHIU3 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,198,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="44727555"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 26 Oct 2015 00:08:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9Q08BXG014293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:08:11 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ( by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:07:48 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:07:47 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHRD4JYrVG7ht7Ark2rdVyu2kC1qQ==
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:07:47 +0000
Message-ID: <D252E730.385E8%acee@cisco.com>
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: <DE98776B2F367C40AC554745F292E8A9@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/IvgKZgzRYNxpUp0H5AtjlrM-siw>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator
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: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:08:13 -0000

I have one major comments and I’ve copied Alvaro since he is reviewing the
base S-BFD drafts. 

  If an OSPF router advertises multiple BFD discriminators, how do the
other OSPF routers in the OSPF routing domain map the S-BFD discriminators
to the OSPF router IP endpoints and services?

I also have some minor comments:

  1) This draft should reference the RFC 4970BIS draft as this is in RFC
EDIT state. 
  2) Section 2.1 - The base RFC 4970BIS draft states that unrecognized
TLVs are ignored (as stated in section 3). This is not specific to this
  3) Section 2.2 - This says the Opaque ID must be 0. Note that an OSPF
router can now originate multiple OSPF RI LSAs instances. I think this TLV
should be allowed in an OSPF RI LSA subsequent to the first.
  4) Section 2.2 - I don’t think we should advocate sending an empty OSPF
Router Information LSA. I’d remove this case.