Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-01.txt
"Retana, Alvaro" <alvaro.retana@hp.com> Tue, 10 July 2012 14:49 UTC
Return-Path: <alvaro.retana@hp.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 E6F5421F86DC for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81Zkw7BkpqAy for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com (g4t0017.houston.hp.com [15.201.24.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4025021F86D7 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from G2W1953G.americas.hpqcorp.net (gvt0525.austin.hp.com [16.238.8.185]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g4t0017.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C22753817F; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:49:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from G1W4243G.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.193.104.156) by G2W1953G.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.238.8.185) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.4; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:48:41 +0000
Received: from G2W2446.americas.hpqcorp.net ([169.254.7.17]) by G1W4243G.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.193.104.156]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:48:41 +0000
From: "Retana, Alvaro" <alvaro.retana@hp.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNVg5HsUaborfKXU2QsMDIg0DSaJcSTL2AgAON5BCAAC4dgIAAD8EQgAAKS4CAAArbEIAMex5w
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:48:40 +0000
Message-ID: <C03AAF38AD209F4BB02BC0A34B774CE70BEE39@G2W2446.americas.hpqcorp.net>
References: <20120629154505.32213.79435.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FEE8683.1010706@cisco.com> <C03AAF38AD209F4BB02BC0A34B774CE707E8EC@G1W3777.americas.hpqcorp.net> <AE5A393F-251A-427B-ACE6-60CEF33ADFA0@ericsson.com> <C03AAF38AD209F4BB02BC0A34B774CE7081B52@G1W3777.americas.hpqcorp.net> <CC0FB959-2878-4708-9236-6AB9C3EB0238@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [15.217.50.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:49:11 -0000
Hi! Before I publish an update I want to make sure that we're covering what you want covered. I pasted below the relevant sections. Note that the new sections are 3.1 and the second paragraph in Section 5. Thanks! Alvaro. ... 3. Solutions The solution introduced in this document solves two challenges associated with the outlined problem. In the description below, router X is the router announcing itself as a stub. 1) Making other routers prefer routes around router X while performing the Dijkstra calculation. 2) Allowing other routers to reach IP prefixes directly connected to router X. Note that it would be easy to address issue 1) alone by just flushing router X's router-LSA from the domain. However, it does not solve problem 2), since other routers will not be able to use links to router X in Dijkstra (no back link), and because router X will not have links to its neighbors. To address both problems, router X announces its router-LSA to the neighbors with the costs of all non-stub links (links of the types other than 3) set to MaxLinkMetric. The solution above applies to both OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. 3.1. OSPFv3-only Solution OSPFv3 [RFC5340] introduced additional options to provide similar, if not better, control of the forwarding topology; the R-bit and the V6- bit provide a more granular indication of whether a router is active and/or whether it should be used specifically for IPv6 traffic, respectively. It is left to network operators to decide which technique to use in their network. 4. Maximum Link Metric ... 5. Deployment Considerations When using MaxLinkMetric, some inconsistency may be seen if the network is constructed of routers that perform intra-area Dijkstra calculation as specified in [RFC1247] (discarding link records in router-LSAs that have a MaxLinkMetric cost value) and routers that perform it as specified in [RFC1583] and higher (do not treat links with MaxLinkMetric cost as unreachable). Note that this inconsistency will not lead to routing loops, because if there are some alternate paths in the network, both types of routers will agree on using them rather than the path through the stub router. If the path through the stub router is the only one, the routers of the first type will not use the stub router for transit (which is the desired behavior), while the routers of the second type will still use this path. On the other hand, clearing the R-bit/V6-bit will consistently result in the router not being used as transit and/or specifically for IPv6 traffic, respectively. > -----Original Message----- > From: Retana, Alvaro > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:23 PM > To: 'Acee Lindem' > Cc: Shishio Tsuchiya; ospf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-01.txt > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 11:29 AM > ... > > > Besides from the reference (see below), what else do you think we > > should include? > > > > > > The point I'm trying to make is: rfc5340 already defines and > > documents the R-bit functionality (and it is the standard!). IMHO, > > there is no need to rehash here what is already defined and explained > > somewhere else...which is why I think the reference is enough. > > > > I don't think you have to describe the mechanism. However, I agree R- > > bit should be on equal ground as the max-metric links. Also, it would > > be good to point out the difference in behavior. With max-metric > links, > > transit traffic is discouraged while with the R-bit, transit traffic > is > > completely suppressed. > > Ok, I'll work on that. > > Alvaro.
- [OSPF] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bi… Shishio Tsuchiya
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Retana, Alvaro
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Retana, Alvaro
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Retana, Alvaro
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Retana, Alvaro
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Retana, Alvaro
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Shishio Tsuchiya
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Shishio Tsuchiya
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Retana, Alvaro
- Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis… Shishio Tsuchiya