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

Shraddha Hegde <> Fri, 05 May 2017 06:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06C412943D for <>; Thu, 4 May 2017 23:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bay1T046suxv for <>; Thu, 4 May 2017 23:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7542A129454 for <>; Thu, 4 May 2017 23:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=jJOPohgFM6EC06O4/XUBkU0tLUQwJAlHyI2XcgKJxLA=; b=doNYvsvlo/7FG6B0M/+5BrES8dnRQVjjBweVVm0EDkpe6YWGZP2OR4KkBdU82JnQus9uu144M1mCVzcrUYIp8Gx7RsKAXUkYONbPR9IbVcjzNODrz8jAFDnuFIG16SUu39g4MaXWg+N63Jo9yoRjCyRBs6/t5yBYUesfXHMx3jQ=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1084.7; Fri, 5 May 2017 06:05:09 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1084.007; Fri, 5 May 2017 06:05:09 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, OSPF WG List <>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
Thread-Index: AQHSxQanGGW4vWTLFUe0gcAxuCky/6Hkn50AgACdUEA=
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 06:05:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR05MB2706; 7:QqJDj++wIdFycBQAZRE1bG5jgaCLwhv2oiwIeNkeIbE+/PdtoNxIySZILI+kxpXxF48lEIaU26dK+FZF5L13wQmDFPzF6Y3vWHYQXYlQzvq5d8nsZD8+FN1/YCQ9QHqZaRCls//Gm8V0MPAcWjio97BCrUt4qHPTA2qOqM14sW5Mw7DiABl5TogKkgs0SkF2VWGqN1TAOtrMJYuQcjk6jHWfGwsTzzNdTrbTto0mhq34lIbYaTGV4F16/jkLVgSJZkRUP968aabZMZnqg6qNSsomRg/B+lIsCPcdlfIVmZfoceDTb6F6rvnW978PGHya4knxh1uDj5MXPUgkTpD7VQ==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8bebd4b2-5c9b-4085-ec97-08d4937caf91
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(100405760836317)(95692535739014)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;
x-forefront-prvs: 02981BE340
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39450400003)(39860400002)(39840400002)(39410400002)(39850400002)(39400400002)(377454003)(6506006)(33656002)(6436002)(8936002)(2906002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(77096006)(50986999)(76176999)(54356999)(189998001)(478600001)(2900100001)(38730400002)(19609705001)(25786009)(53546009)(6116002)(66066001)(3846002)(102836003)(790700001)(122556002)(2950100002)(53936002)(6306002)(5660300001)(81166006)(99286003)(54896002)(9686003)(86362001)(7696004)(6246003)(8676002)(74316002)(55016002)(7736002)(217873001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN3PR05MB2706F06DC72F6DEC279DCDCCD5EB0BN3PR05MB2706namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 May 2017 06:05:09.4754 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2706
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 05 May 2017 06:05:14 -0000


>Additionally, there is the undesirable side effect of TE LSAs resulting in inclusion in the TE topology for multiple >implementations

The testing results on 3 implementation shows that local/remote interface ID in TE Opaque LSA does not result into links getting included in TE topology. Pls refer introduction section of draft draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-02.

RFC 4203 defines Link local scope TE-Opaque LSA to carry the interface-id and a remote ingress node would not be adding links to TE-Topology based on these link local LSAs simply because they would never see them.


From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 1:57 AM
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.


From: Acee Lindem <<>>
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
To: OSPF WG List <<>>
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.