Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 04 May 2017 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 57A26124BFA for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 14:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 L8wdnsor_Yba for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 14:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60022127078 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2017 14:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12388; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493932036; x=1495141636; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=60WBEEcbL2PqIpNCai0Em5FRPZTYuGcUxSpqAgZf4Yo=; b=VC144X7NZ5/sl1otBIB5ttJgM0Qenubrx9yLx/kZXf41wYiD9p5KOLeR 2s0jLAAD4FiImxZMLpsqlbdgFxA/LT/MzXdHIXstLfh3tGEorsmojcuIj h2pSkIOCRCOJ7J3rx6NZIHCpqrfa6FTBAxZpw0P1PngCwYeKowTvm+tbZ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BpAQDllgtZ/4kNJK1cGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgm5nYoEMB4NhihiRVpA3hTiCD4YkAhqEMz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDIwpAHAIBCBEDAQEBKAMCAgIwFAkIAgQBEggTigWxVYImimcBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhl+BXQGDG4UDBhCCUIJfBZ1lAZMLgg2FOYoqlDQBHzi?= =?us-ascii?q?BCm8VRoUogUp2h3SBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,289,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217";a="241394159"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 May 2017 21:07:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (xch-aln-015.cisco.com [173.36.7.25]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v44L7F8q012548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2017 21:07:15 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 4 May 2017 16:07:14 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 4 May 2017 16:07:14 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
Thread-Index: AQHSxQanGGW4vWTLFUe0gcAxuCky/6Hkn50AgAAKN+A=
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:07:14 +0000
Message-ID: <3c98aeb64ea742eaa5038eee24445028@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <D530EF1D.ACB7C%acee@cisco.com> <D53106AD.ACBA9%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D53106AD.ACBA9%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.32.152.11]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3c98aeb64ea742eaa5038eee24445028XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/gtxXEHXFU23RVHNfqdpWw01MGzw>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 May 2017 21:07:18 -0000

A strong +1  here.

Acee has captured very well the compelling(sic) reasons for defining these extensions.

Use of RFC 4302 extensions are only a workaround for functionality which is missing in the protocol. We need to close that gap.

   Les


From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:27 PM
To: OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

Speaking as a WG member:

I believe we should move forward with this simple mechanism for OSPFv2 neighbors to learn each other’s interface ID. Both IS-IS and, more importantly, OSPFv3 learn the interface ID via their respective hello mechanisms. Just because one implementation has repurposed the Generalized MPL (GMPL) extensions described in RFC 4302 for interface ID learning is not a reason to preclude using the more generally accepted IGP Hello packet learning. Additionally, there is the undesirable side effect of TE LSAs resulting in inclusion in the TE topology for multiple implementations.

Finally, when the right technical direction is clear and there is rough consensus, the OSPF WG MUST NOT be obstructed.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"


This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment that a solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption and we are now doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your support or objection by May 20th, 2017.

Thanks,
Acee