[OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification

"Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <balagane@cisco.com> Tue, 13 June 2017 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <balagane@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CE8129BB8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 01:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0R2li-sNUXDi for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 01:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20A97128BB6 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 01:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13071; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497341605; x=1498551205; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=RS6KBIxGZqhUZ/eRoln8zKFyt7xEQY+wF6boO3loqeM=; b=Rxjr6CxRPJRpjNQZeUSKCAdi4HiVWuhkB4bRHCnNYzn163J2nB3rLf5V LwcXpurnxZ3lD43jXWwkB0nXLSeTRA5e/cm53MQTJ0Z6mvWAABTpAATrr xnehVeK/Cld3VHzGI1zoI/dBRYO/A9lLpxvh4XYXVsVAZfkcTxExpV0tt A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,337,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="439499342"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 Jun 2017 08:13:24 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (xch-aln-016.cisco.com []) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5D8DOjI024592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:13:24 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com ( by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 03:13:23 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 03:13:23 -0500
From: "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <balagane@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
Thread-Index: AdLkGi3sjJ7p8CTLSIuMJLI3Ylo5mw==
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:13:23 +0000
Message-ID: <d603d4b43ade416093bc56b9fd7602be@XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d603d4b43ade416093bc56b9fd7602beXCHALN017ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ahnNFDOMooVODhXC_EJwJttrjtg>
Subject: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
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: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:13:27 -0000

Hi all,

When the metrics are same, RFC 3101 specifies the preference for NSSA/External routes as follows.
In the section 2.5<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3101#section-2.5> Calculating Type-7 AS External Routes - 2.5.6.(e), it says..

          (e) If the current LSA is functionally the same as an
              installed LSA (i.e., same destination, cost and non-zero
              forwarding address) then apply the following priorities in
              deciding which LSA is preferred:

                 1. A Type-7 LSA with the P-bit set.

                 2. A Type-5 LSA.

                 3. The LSA with the higher router ID.

Points 1 and 2 are clear..

However Point 3 specifies preference of an LSA with a higher router ID. Why is it so?

-          Should we not install ECMP paths in this case?

-          Is point 3 actually intended for NSSA translators to prefer a Type 7 LSA which needs to be used for translation to Type 5?

Considering the above 2 points, I guess point 3 needs to be modified in the RFC to probably say..

                    3. Preference is same, install ECMP paths.
                       Additionally if the router is an NSSA translator, prefer the LSA with higher router ID for Type 7-Type 5 translation.

Please let know any views/comments on the same.