Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <asmirnov@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA511A0062 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 Pj4jnYVJcYoa for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23FF71A005B for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2268; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409072608; x=1410282208; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PBebQJoGrf+GkuFezC6QkR+0Z93DUamHMenvqtrPomA=; b=Q2dUSAEjM/xVB0k6uM/oRH98DIVHUoCqKzjdUJBX17nZcRnpvCa0sQG2 bINa3+laQNFVFLzoE/TLTCri2lmkIggJM3PVOhg+pCFIkkNlTvyQ1W3so M2r2OFVqFJrhGIx7E/TAnaaTe0pYscuW8uyBsVrvfy0yt2/o6eiSXTpyO Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,405,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="149711322"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 17:03:25 +0000
Received: from as-lnx.cisco.com (ams-asmirnov-8714.cisco.com [10.55.140.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QH3O3b029904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:03:25 GMT
Message-ID: <53FCBDDC.6000902@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:03:24 +0200
From: Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com> <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: asmirnov
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/kjr_Gne9FjykmvtXjT1rEEzCoRY
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:03:31 -0000

    Hi Peter,
    the draft lists about 5 different *example* applications which COULD 
be addressed by node admin tags. So if you take 1 particular possible 
scenario out of the draft - you still have 4 possible applications. 
Examples are there to demonstrate that admin tags is useful general 
tool, not to require the solution.
    Sure, each of possible scenarios can be solved by tailored solution. 
But each tailored solution is required to go via IETF adoption and 
implementation by vendors. And indeed, in cases where tailored solution 
brings so much operational benefit that it warrants slow path of IETF 
adoption, feature development by multiple vendors and network deployment 
- it will be used and will kill desire to solve the problem with admin tags.
   And vice verse - tags (when widely supported) will facilitate rapid 
development and deployment of services which we otherwise can't (or 
slow) to offer.


    As for your particular example - operator still has to go to each 
and every device and enable Remote LFA on it. But we are not trying to 
solve this operational complexity with OSPF autoconfiguration. So it 
shouldn't be that complex to enable acceptable node tag at the same time 
as enabling rLFA itself.

Anton


On 08/26/2014 10:05 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
>> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
>> remote-LFA eligibility.
>
> my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
> is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
> the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
> to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>>
>> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
>> OSPF WG document.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf