Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

+1 

The only case of ISIS as PE-CE known so far to me is the ISOVPN
deployments. Don’t see how this proposal add any considerable value.


On 10/9/14, 10:45 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Adding the IS-IS WG since there is an equivalent draft for IS-IS
>submitted by the same authors.
>
>"IF" this were something the respective WGs decide the protocol should
>support, then running a separate instance of the protocol so that the
>flowspec  advertisements can be isolated from the primary function of the
>IGP (routing) would be the right way to implement it - and this is
>precisely what GENINFO/MI (RFC 6823/6822) were defined to address. OSPF
>Transport instance would be the analogous mechanism for OSPF.
>
>But the first question is whether this is something the IGPs should
>support at all. As Acee has indicated this was proposed previously in
>OSPF and there was little interest. In the case of IS-IS there is even
>less reason to consider it since IS-IS is NOT deployed as a PE-CE
>protocol.
>
>   Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OSPF [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>> (acee)
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM
>> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] New Version Notification for
>>draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-
>> extensions-01.txt
>> 
>> Hi Peter, et al,
>> I’ve also seen many OSPF PE-CE deployments as well. One question is
>> whether the CE is under the administrative control of the provider or
>>the
>> customer?
>> Note that this was proposed at least once before -
>> http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-shrivastava-ospf-flow-spec-01.txt
>>bit
>> it didn’t gain momentum.
>> 
>> With respect to Hannes’ comment, Les Ginsberg said he sees this as a
>> candidate for the ISIS Generic Information instance (RFC 6823). We
>>could do
>> the same and push it to the OSPF transport instance which has also lost
>> momentum as a draft.
>> 
>> We’ve heard from one provider (Eric) who doesn’t think this is useful -
>>any
>> other input?
>> 
>> One thing I hope is that no sees this a generic flow-spec distribution
>> mechanism for SDN. The reason being that you really need per peer
>> granularity of advertisement and policy, e.g. BGP.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> On Oct 8, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Peter Psenak <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi Eric,
>> >
>> > there are definitely deployments using OSPF as PE-CE. It's typically
>>used
>> for enterprise customers, that use OSPF as their IGP and use L3 VPN
>>service
>> to interconnect their sites.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > On 10/8/14 17:45 , Osborne, Eric wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure this has much value.  The vast majority of dynamic
>>PE-CE is
>> done with BGP; the little bit that isn't BGP is, in my experience, RIP.
>> I don't
>> think I've seen many (any?) OSPF PE-CE deployments.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> eric
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: OSPF [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Youjianjie
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:11 PM
>> >> To: [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: [OSPF] 转发: New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-
>> flowspec-extensions-01.txt
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> This document discusses the use cases that OSPF is used to distribute
>> FlowSpec routes. This document also defines a new OSPF FlowSpec Opaque
>> Link State Advertisement (LSA) encoding format.
>> >> Your comments are appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards,
>> >> Jianjie
>> >>
>> >> -----邮件原件-----
>> >> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> 发送时间: 2014年9月28日 10:32
>> >> 收件人: Youjianjie; Youjianjie; liuweihang; liuweihang
>> >> 主题: New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-
>> extensions-01.txt
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A new version of I-D, draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt
>> >> has been successfully submitted by Jianjie You and posted to the IETF
>> repository.
>> >>
>> >> Name:		draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions
>> >> Revision:	01
>> >> Title:		OSPF Extensions for Flow Specification
>> >> Document date:	2014-09-27
>> >> Group:		Individual Submission
>> >> Pages:		11
>> >> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liang-ospf-
>> flowspec-extensions-01.txt
>> >> Status:      
>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-
>> extensions/
>> >> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-
>> extensions-01
>> >> Diff:        
>>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-
>> extensions-01
>> >>
>> >> Abstract:
>> >>    This document discusses the use cases why OSPF (Open Shortest Path
>> >>    First) distributing flow specification (FlowSpec) routes is
>> >>    necessary.  This document also defines a new OSPF FlowSpec Opaque
>> >>    Link State Advertisement (LSA) encoding format that can be used to
>> >>    distribute FlowSpec routes.
>> >>
>> >>    For the network only deploying IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol)
>>(e.g.
>> >>    OSPF), it is expected to extend IGP to distribute FlowSpec routes.
>> >>    One advantage is to mitigate the impacts of Denial-of-Service
>>(DoS)
>> >>    attacks.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>>tools.ietf.org.
>> >>
>> >> The IETF Secretariat
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OSPF mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OSPF mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OSPF mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>_______________________________________________
>Isis-wg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg