Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>

["Marek Karasek (mkarasek)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

one can argue that if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, DR will
not produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding to the transit network.
To some extend it's equivalent of v2 behavior, prefix suppression has to
be configured on DR in order to hide the subnet on the broadcast
segment.

In any case, it would be good if draft specify:
 - if prefixes are suppressed from Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA only, or also
from link LSA.
 - if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, will be suppressed only
own prefixes, or also prefixes learnt from BDRs/DROTHERs via link LSAs.

I read current draft such that prefixes are suppresses only from
Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA and if suppression configured on DR, DR will not
produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
corresponding to the transit network. I'm OK with it, but other models
are acceptable too.

Thanks marek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of
> Acee Lindem
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:54 PM
> To: Yi Yang (yiya)
> Cc: OSPF List
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only
Networks
> in OSPF " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>
> 
> Hi Yi,
> The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs
> since they are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
> corresponding to the transit network
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote:
> 
> > Hi Rajesh,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be
> configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF
> calculations.
> >
> > Yi
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Acee,
> >>
> >> Some more thoughts.
> >>
> >> 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks
in
> OSPFv3"
> >> We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is
> configured on a
> >> interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA.
> >>
> >> 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to
support
> OSPF
> >> and OSPFv3 MIBs as well.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Rajesh
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM
> >> To: Rajesh
> >> Cc: OSPF List
> >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only
> Networks in
> >> OSPF " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>
> >>
> >> Hi Rajesh,
> >>
> >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear Acee,
> >>>
> >>> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for
> OSPFv3]
> >>> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual
> LINK IPv6
> >>> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the
> prefix
> >>> hiding is configured"
> >>
> >> It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is
> not
> >> advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC
> 5340,
> >> Section 4.4.3.9.  Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address
> to
> >> terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with
> the
> >> prefix hiding configured.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Acee
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Please check.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks & Regards
> >>> Rajesh
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of
> >> Acee
> >>> Lindem
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM
> >>> Cc: OSPF List
> >>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only
Networks
> in
> >> OSPF
> >>> " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>
> >>>
> >>> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF
> Working Group
> >>> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt.
> >>> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to
> 12:00 AM
> >>> PDT on February 23nd, 2012.
> >>> Here is a URL for your convenience:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Acee
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is
> ready for
> >>> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?
> >>>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you
> convenience:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/
> >>>>
> >>>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any
> objections.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Acee
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> OSPF mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OSPF mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OSPF mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf