Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"

Anton Smirnov <> Sun, 31 January 2016 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304D71B2C95 for <>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:14:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.102
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hEh9ONJ2SQIZ for <>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C45D1B2C86 for <>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:14:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2279; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454271258; x=1455480858; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5fRnvyZrCCX0xfHIoSyTtezCI8+IwVQtnXjFin3azio=; b=Oz+8EHFpX3bmtaIadsplMdutU9PZzuR/FL/iyIhUYw+2RUbA17mEZFVC lDFwvnkBFoJ2ZRhIGkr1sKftUX2EjyFwt9KJZb/F+w6VnuIX63bQ4M0kT 3ifF8zMGJGo9HFqJCYSFWgyS7TgiZPXNB1Uw2dm8wOYnD0/QceYb1VndY Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,377,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="648948169"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2016 20:14:16 +0000
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0VKEFXm022733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Jan 2016 20:14:16 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:14:15 +0100
From: Anton Smirnov <>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, OSPF WG List <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: asmirnov
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 20:14:20 -0000

    Hub-and-Spoke topology is a known topology where OSPF traditionally 
performed poorly and in my opinion work in this area is very important.
    On the other hand, I have number of concerns regarding usability of 
approach chosen in this draft and I think in its current state the draft 
is not ready for WG adoption.
    I have big concerns regarding implementation simplicity and solution 
applicability (i.e. hub-and-spoke networks where proposed solution 
doesn't work). But first of all I want to make a comment on the text as 
it is.
    Some hub-and-spoke topologies are point-to-multipoint networks. 10 
years ago it was a fraction of all hub-and-spoke WAN, nowadays it is a 
majority. Draft doesn't consider multipoint operations (at least it 
doesn't have word 'multipoint' in it). But multipoint has very big 
implications on having multiple spoofed Router LSAs and their filtering 
- since all stub neighbors are on the same interface, one can't use 
per-interface filtering (which is tightly related to per-interface 
flooding). Spoofed Router LSA will have a new type of flooding behavior 
- per-neighbor. This is doable but it is not specified anywhere and is 
not coded by any implementation I am aware of (i.e. existing filtering 
mechanisms are between different interfaces, not between neighbors on 
the same multipoint interface).
    So the draft needs to define new LSA flooding scope - per-neighbor 
flooding scope, much like interface-scope flooding had to be devised for 
Opaque LSAs.
    This is not all for implementation complexity not covered in the 
draft but it will be a good start.


On 01/26/2016 05:39 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> This draft was has gone through some refinements after being presented in
> Hawaii and in Yokohama there was some support of this protocol extension.
> Here is a URL for you convenience.
> Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG
> Document. The WG Adoption call will end in 2 weeks.
> Thanks,
> Acee
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list