Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"

Uma Chunduri <> Fri, 08 April 2016 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B942112D775 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hOaBY22en_lw for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9712012D151 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79216d00000767f-ca-570719253a5b
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EC.2C.30335.52917075; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 04:36:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:03:08 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri <>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, OSPF WG List <>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
Thread-Index: AQHRf/Ho6WRxQA5zQE2bUJRokiTbP59dC0kggCJ0YZA=
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 03:03:07 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn66qJHu4wdoZ+haT385jttjwZyO7 Rcu9e+wOzB5Tfm9k9Viy5CdTAFMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8a8k19ZC7YpV8xb+Ji9gfGAUhcj J4eEgInEphObmSFsMYkL99azdTFycQgJHGWU6FzzlBHCWcYo8X/KFRaQKjYBPYmPU3+ydzFy cIgIVEp8/S4FEhYWiJN4eWwJG4gtIhAvMW15HyOEbSXx4ekxMJtFQEVi/Y+j7CA2r4CvxJ3+ Q2BjhATSJE4esQYJcwq4SkyY8ogVxGYEuuf7qTVMIDazgLjErSfzmSDuFJBYsuc81M2iEi8f /2OFsJUk5ry+xgwykllAU2L9Ln2IVkWJKd0PobYKSpyc+YRlAqPoLCRTZyF0zELSMQtJxwJG llWMHKXFBTm56UYGmxiBEXFMgk13B+P96Z6HGAU4GJV4eBcIsIcLsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuHN lQEK8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES520M/hcmJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYGT7xfz2 0jW9nLfq3iu0jRNCLZnUHr93yxHfbLku6NMVFoFDjy0rli8vkGEVOJf3SHPr/Iv156WKA77s N4/zPxa1Lb/QREDNq146Kf7v15eRsQ9Y2kXW6JYYLK1fUJdiHZr3hX1ySIejkgb3+7x93QzX 4p6xGEq0vt7dVxPNfC1Gbn+l2uEPSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAyZW3MYQCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 03:03:11 -0000


In-line [Uma]:

Uma C.

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:41 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee); OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"

My opinion of the draft has not changed.
It is defining a way to utilize OSPF to send application information - which is not something the protocol should be used to do.
Further, it leaves definition of the new codepoints and formats of the information advertised completely unspecified - the latest draft revision states:

" The meaning of the operator-defined sub-TLV is totally opaque to OSPF
   and is defined by the network local policy and is controlled via
   configuration.  "

How interoperability is achieved is not addressed at all.

[Uma]: The whole point of the draft is,  not to define the format for the sub-TLVs so that it can be used  as per the sub-tlv type as set by the operator (for example service attribute/Label).  Sub-TLV has set of attribute length and attribute value in NBO.

IS-IS has taken a much more stringent approach to a similar request. 	

[Uma]: .. and hence unfortunately I see no body saw using it- in fact including you. For example could have used GENAPP but rather resorted to Router capabilities (Remember IETF90 discussion around this).

RFC 6823 (GENAPP) requires that information sent in the generic container TLV MUST be based on a public specification - and that an application specific ID for the application using this mechanism be assigned by IANA. This addresses the interoperability issue.
GENAPP further specifies that such information SHOULD be advertised by a separate instance of the routing protocol (as specified in RFC 6822(MI)) so as to minimize the impact of the application information flooding on the performance of the routing protocol.

[Uma]: As I indicated earlier [I-D.ietf-ospf-transport-instance] can be definitely used if the information related to application need to be used there. If it is used for supporting routing one can use this TLV.

Without addressing both of these issues I cannot support the draft.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:09 PM
> To: OSPF WG List
> Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for 
> Agile Service Deployment"
> We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it seems 
> like a useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between 
> OSPF and user and third-party applications to convey 
> application-specific information learned from other OSPF routers. In 
> many respects, this has already been envisioned for OSPF Node Tags. 
> Please indicate your opinion on this draft before March 31st, 2016.
> Thanks,
> Acee
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
OSPF mailing list