Re: [OSPF] OSPF RFC 2328

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 28 April 2017 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 19DEC127B52 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.016
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.506, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 otOV5hiATKnz for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63DA6129A92 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21088; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493402623; x=1494612223; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=08obEOBYbc+Pkln5c9EVCFdcKq2PHB/mvDbTU5scG3Y=; b=cmhpbsjaGS2F3Pwwzz/wizWIgi2vIiSiMpSI3GSTsiEQAByKvpJBHdc6 bsxfQtdCe459/tANFBcOJFUHuHgeKDPsfa3N3d53lA3zVPIBL6/ldLnNd whIxgJaJegKa0LddrMLRuKfJwIpIfsS3Ee04d6FlMvTXMFXZkIR3hcbic 4=;
X-Files: image001.png : 6885
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0APAQAGgwNZ/4sNJK1bAxkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJuZ2GBDAeDYYoYkU2QNoU3gg8HARyGAByEHD8YAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BayiFFQEDAwUeAggBXQEIBwoDAQIGAQEBHwMCBBUBDgwUCQoEAREBBgiKEa8Tg?= =?us-ascii?q?iaLCQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ4PiD2DGoE8gzEJCQEmgj+CXwWJRJQ?= =?us-ascii?q?NAYQMghMBjG2DY417lCgBHziBCm8VRIRsEYFzdYZfgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,388,1488844800"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="417529952"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Apr 2017 18:03:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3SI3gSP029126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:03:42 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:03:39 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:03:39 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Panetta, Chris" <Chris.Panetta@SCWA.com>, "'ospf@ietf.org'" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF RFC 2328
Thread-Index: AQHSwEnDBO6XOXb75EW4zGAm0S3phA==
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:03:39 +0000
Message-ID: <D528FBDC.AC346%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_D528FBDCAC346aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/YcGtsva3DrHskTc773FXhF_ceic>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF RFC 2328
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: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:06:44 -0000

Hi Chris,

From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Panetta, Chris" <Chris.Panetta@SCWA.com<mailto:Chris.Panetta@SCWA.com>>
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 1:36 PM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OSPF] OSPF RFC 2328

Hello,

I was referred over to this group from secretariat@ietf.org<mailto:secretariat@ietf.org>. I just have a general question in regards to RFC 2328 or more specifically devices within my network that are clearly not following procedure. I guess I am also trying to get more of an understanding of how a company would establish itself as being a provider of a routing device. I am currently in discussions with a company that has provided us with the ability to perform OSPF within our company. We are running into an issue though where it seems as if OSPF is NOT following the RFC 2328 procedure. What’s happening is the device is believing itself to have higher router ID than the DR/ BDR when the DR / BDR is already established. The DR has a priority of 110 the BDR has priority 105 and the device in question has a priority of 1. For a company to even say that they can provide RIP / OSPF / BGP on their devices do they have to adhere to IETF RFCs? Is that checked at all by the IETF a product is performing per RFC?

I can tell you that this is unequivocally not the charter of the IETF.

Thanks,
Acee (OSPF Co-Chair)



Christopher Panetta
Network Administrator
Suffolk County Water Authority
4060 Sunrise Hwy
Oakdale, New York 11769
D   631-563-0332
M  631-338-6081
http://www.scwa.com<http://www.scwa.com/>
[scwalogo_new-transparent2_yellow-scwa.gif]