Re: [OSPF] OSPF Digest, Vol 135, Issue 12

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Thu, 04 May 2017 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@gmail.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 B167E129469 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 16:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 pEviDsZ97MI8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 16:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (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 39C54126D05 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2017 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id w64so10433072wma.0 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 May 2017 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=AZi2Fok7rnCCs7uAn2zczIEFKdtqR0lixapBUZyU+MI=; b=hoopyK74guJUqpZ9ghW2RueFD+QqYtjH2yi/uq+lByizJfDBaROtH3Rtyeo7CUr7WB 2jua3eN/EdLwyMD9qXyxZhGXdf1aDBJQeno5vqJz4y6za2UVQjht/eEOLtgm9N8cwqlB fyoiv0x4aAU2wIP9qHowu7vtOD4YEBZgpjbn6MilBbuUKg9PCghnArdg0mXSJo37MBBI bHB9w++MtOgmmrn/WlwI+IPd7bU82at7genLUbnrsjX2S8kyo5DxqYGKWBSR3liSI7aY 6B2Sawm/EKv2EjUxwjQrAyQHa4HafPLFnsnR0km0TP4Kwp7wUK+JYpRFCqqdyuCIIKeb mS3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=AZi2Fok7rnCCs7uAn2zczIEFKdtqR0lixapBUZyU+MI=; b=AUyJMQlUfeG5AkpKRaw8paANf2c/iKbGhQSm7pHMVRn+JH6wQb3/o7EOSyEkF//DI6 /6I3ymgzJmHVbfvO8KxE44Ttcx0xSAmPL8AEA1cXK1P1nmaWn1UERFseHxVRzHY82BJU 3LpKAjY3X7op5JYTPEO95oLZi7qIWT2tKh3urk6Fv3f3G8Bkcxt6ifoZlIQvK0PCTQN8 a9hX0/Y4bNZQkSMRpTHkLMUgCsIFvkXM2zK4vY7pK3DQhpfo6OLwKaXHYYMg2yUaaU7W 7QPGV34kRF8icPwJHt7bP7N+wh36G0UIJ34jgsS/EmVy/a41NkdvO/B7ZSMxiuN+n5LH zjvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7hwtmhrbUKO41Kw9gS90/twdgpWuR6GEimbGpl5ZxZYGhwhhcI ucvHDaXh5ek3WUvSdvF0GOD4i+ckrQar
X-Received: by 10.80.134.208 with SMTP id 16mr31514596edu.67.1493940611616; Thu, 04 May 2017 16:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.159.37 with HTTP; Thu, 4 May 2017 16:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1009.1493936334.3775.ospf@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.1009.1493936334.3775.ospf@ietf.org>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 16:29:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hMX688OK1c71cSjwt-WqVk2gdgb-Q=QntSUGKvEbxwimA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ospf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045c1898789542054ebb2729
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/T5wQe0rF78yeUz0NEhflRVGwbZw>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Digest, Vol 135, Issue 12
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 23:30:16 -0000

A conditional -1 here ...

I am fine with adoption if I see a version that spells the detailed
behavior and especially interactions between RFC4302 and this draft in a
detailed section, i.e. both on, RFC4302 gets configured/unconfigured, are
the LLS extensions advertised on every hello or just until a specific state
(like ISIS padding thingies) and so on ...

I'd rather have this now than a LC discussion ...

The idea is deceptively simple but it is a redundant mechanism and those
always end causing inter-op problems unless cleanly spelled out ...

--- tony


On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:18 PM, <ospf-request@ietf.org> wrote:

> Send OSPF mailing list submissions to
>         ospf@ietf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         ospf-request@ietf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         ospf-owner@ietf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of OSPF digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re:  WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
>       Interface ID Advertisement" (Les Ginsberg (ginsberg))
>    2. Re:  WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
>       Interface ID Advertisement" (Robert Raszuk)
>    3. Re:  WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
>       Interface ID Advertisement" (Yingzhen Qu)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>om>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:07:14 +0000
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
>
> A strong +1  here.
>
>
>
> Acee has captured very well the compelling(sic) reasons for defining these
> extensions.
>
>
>
> Use of RFC 4302 extensions are only a workaround for functionality which
> is missing in the protocol. We need to close that gap.
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:27 PM
> *To:* OSPF WG List
> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
>
>
>
> 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>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
> *To: *OSPF WG List <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
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 17:20:29 -0400
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
> Support.
>
> On May 4, 2017 11:52 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>om>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:18:41 +0000
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
>
> Strong support +1 here.
>
>
>
> The draft provides a generic way for the missing info and it’s needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yingzhen
>
>
>
> *From:* OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:27 PM
> *To:* OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
>
>
>
> 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>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
> *To: *OSPF WG List <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>


-- 
*We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
that is not true.*
—Robert Wilensky