[OSPF] Poll for implementations supporting Link Local Identifier exchange using link scope TI-LSA (RFC 4203)

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 10 May 2017 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 89A73126DFB for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 May 2017 05:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.803
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 oE3f2uX3CnLs for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 May 2017 05:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 370B51293E4 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 May 2017 05:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=852; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494421196; x=1495630796; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=s46XPyA75rrzQo9wdVZFBJ/e29PGzOuwa+Xvh8TipaU=; b=P3XG4EkPHBk8vgncGokgv9whyIO28/TLzV46dC3BgcAhqDF7KTP3L1K5 TrBROaUMSf9Yl1NRW+SweSDxyC2+agqr3JXrrp4R+aA7UKG5Rql7oHd3r Lndboj8YBs5Lz/w38KPdtRExgi+w4qSzslO2O/6EoB+WCzFvlfNIXoHWm o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BrAQB4DhNZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgyqRDaZVgg+LYhcBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIVUQD0WBBQDAgECAUsNCAE?= =?us-ascii?q?Bih2iP5IfEop1AQEBBwIBJYZfgV6EV4kVAQSeCoFbkUCLAoZplEMhAjQ/Sy8gC?= =?us-ascii?q?BkVRoUCKYFMPolPAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,319,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="654599127"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 May 2017 12:59:38 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.66] ([10.147.24.66]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4ACxcHg021459 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:59:38 GMT
Message-ID: <59130EBA.4030300@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 14:59:38 +0200
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ZcpwTBeccCpQA1PV50knMhUfMAc>
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for implementations supporting Link Local Identifier exchange using link scope TI-LSA (RFC 4203)
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: Wed, 10 May 2017 12:59:58 -0000

Hi,

we are planning to add the backward compatibility section to
draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id as suggested on the list, but we 
wanted to assure that there are, in fact, implementations that use the 
mechanism defined in RFC 4203 for interface ID discovery.

Section 3 of the RFC 4203 defines a "Link Local" TLV and "Link Local 
Identifier" sub-TLV to be used to exchange the Link Local Identifier on 
the unnumbered link. Interestingly enough there is no IANA registry for 
the sub-TLVs of "Link Local" TLV, nor is there any value reserved for 
the "Link Local Identifier" sub-TLV through IANA.

Considering above, I would like to poll the WG to see how many 
implementations are actually supporting the Link Local Identifier 
exchange using the link scope TE-LSA as specified in section 3 of the 
RFC 4203.

thanks,
Peter