Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 941221A8028 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 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=-0.668, 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 QMhQPc9RR1-S for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 462301A7D83 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1616; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409063428; x=1410273028; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dETM5zVc07QLOp2zdbR8tdBRKIPkmY3lrEhxwSRHxYA=; b=UzTRaO8nEFsBLDhlYGakaqclogoTMWEc0X1kQy0W0ZHfLp6gj3uyFL2U EahC3XXuoSrmLkgVMPMqvoFxbpxaZWKr23gmaRPxPwoCNVFoQ0TRVzh1N /7F8xxTM7MDu8rah4HBAu97I3UrsrU/lMIy1heGyiAScJGDlvvZmM2Gav Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,404,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="153659933"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 14:30:26 +0000
Received: from [10.148.128.133] ([10.148.128.133]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QEUQwo029131; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:30:26 GMT
Message-ID: <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:30:26 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com> <D022049C.2295%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D022049C.2295%acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/NYBV_beyFFBzO0qCfewUzh-8N94
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 26 Aug 2014 14:30:30 -0000

Hi Acee,

On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
> respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
> draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
> advertisement for popular applications.

sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote 
LFA tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best 
approach for.

thanks,
Peter

> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
>>> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
>>> remote-LFA eligibility.
>>
>> my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
>> is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
>> the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
>> to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>>
>>> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
>>> OSPF WG document.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
> .
>