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

Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net> Thu, 09 October 2014 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <psarkar@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FE01ACD0E; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 02:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 m374fGvuWCQ4; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 02:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0108.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A86F1ACD07; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 02:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BN1PR05MB520.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.65.151) by BN1PR05MB517.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.65.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:31:30 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB520.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.14.233]) by BN1PR05MB520.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.14.233]) with mapi id 15.00.1049.012; Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:31:30 +0000
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHP46POQkDfObvYKUGuggWg0OeONw==
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:31:29 +0000
Message-ID: <D05C534F.14251%psarkar@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.15]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR05MB517;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0359162B6D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(479174003)(377454003)(51704005)(377424004)(189002)(53754006)(24454002)(199003)(13464003)(164054003)(4396001)(95666004)(107046002)(83506001)(15975445006)(99286002)(77096002)(120916001)(31966008)(230783001)(21056001)(106116001)(106356001)(105586002)(87936001)(99396003)(122556002)(2656002)(97736003)(85306004)(40100002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(86362001)(80022003)(46102003)(561944003)(101416001)(20776003)(76482002)(66066001)(64706001)(54356999)(15202345003)(85852003)(50986999)(92566001)(92726001)(36756003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB517; H:BN1PR05MB520.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-ID: <DCA808BF58582545BEFDF5D68F6FE394@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/b9g3raTTfcItB9nB0iEYPqFk_Mo
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Isis-wg] New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Oct 2014 09:31:35 -0000

+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)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> 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:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>> (acee)
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM
>> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>> 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 <ppsenak@cisco.com> 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:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Youjianjie
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:11 PM
>> >> To: ospf@ietf.org
>> >> 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: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
>> >> 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
>> >> OSPF@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OSPF mailing list
>> >> OSPF@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OSPF mailing list
>> > OSPF@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>_______________________________________________
>Isis-wg mailing list
>Isis-wg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg