Re: [OSPF] More Comments on OSPF S-BFD Discriminator

Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com> Fri, 06 November 2015 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <manavbhatia@gmail.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 E6B161B3385; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:35:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 0Un6Hby-lYer; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:35:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com (mail-yk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CBC91B3371; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:35:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykba4 with SMTP id a4so166827354ykb.3; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:35:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=FBxESshmRsx1LOSsov8EtCuiuwiLEht3wzYaAr3sSKw=; b=YhhoJX9LlMVH//8dQ+UmRVK5Fqe/XmLmy+2h0duykKVcQwEtLcZ+RsF13BhSFzCd86 9M1wbhpjBYcbZWpffl5OYlL55UyGD8ftzHlqFSsIlrkIegc6HJJ5Ic89RAXg6dkeWsqm rcHok/iLBFHtjNaonj1fYHJdD5FS8OIKrnbMOSE8Wmj2abJYDw4XV4bN3Lm/fKzZaUb4 8B/3mnahB6oCxJhDVTWuSQL3BjPfWTnn/UcqLgAJwp0vtDq15dBfg0sO4UDIgFzelSMg 4bQVYGKZiIH3txyWT/kktYn837UrdOjEj77afBiB+BUoiqQTtaKWmdugfoaRj551mj+q 275A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.226.142 with SMTP id l136mr9201209ywe.313.1446777334462; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:35:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.129.106.70 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 18:35:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D252E730.385E8%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D252E730.385E8%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 08:05:34 +0530
Message-ID: <CAG1kdojiU6fzn7XYSSdpfabxMDUQYvbgNNRCjZbraJKq2+WwJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114fbd0c16fe910523d61933
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/PKbpnWH_sP45Pwf3NEqRr2_jurQ>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 02:35:37 -0000

Hi Acee,

Sorry for the late response.

We will add the following text in the next update

“When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given
discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this
document.”

Will address the other minor comments in the next rev.

Cheers, Manav

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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
> TLV.
>   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.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>