Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification

"Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <balagane@cisco.com> Wed, 05 July 2017 06:01 UTC

From: "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <balagane@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
Thread-Index: AQHS6GH6q/Cb2aEok0aI9cREH6X2MqJE1v4Q
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 06:01:24 +0000
Message-ID: <55cc5c59a333478a8af746881e5ac49a@XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com>
References: <D56C3D71.B5516%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D56C3D71.B5516%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_55cc5c59a333478a8af746881e5ac49aXCHALN017ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/m-bMZuliFVcPHIjFioO4GcT1Ts0>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification
Precedence: list

Hi all,

Any views/comments on the below?

Regards,
Balaji

From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 19 June 2017 00:08
To: Balaji Ganesh (balagane) <balagane@cisco.com>; OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification

Hi –  I encouraged Balaji to post to the list is that I think many implementations have ignored #3. I know that I changed the IBM implementation to compute ECMP routes to multiple ASBRs and had the Redback implementation do this from the start. Consequently, we’d like to solicit input as to what other implementations do. If we can reach consensus on this, we could issue an Errata to make this optional.

Thanks,
Acee

From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Balaji Ganesh (balagane)" <balagane@cisco.com<mailto:balagane@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:13 AM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference clarification

Hi all,

When the metrics are same, RFC 3101 specifies the preference for NSSA/External routes as follows.
In the section 2.5<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3101#section-2.5> Calculating Type-7 AS External Routes - 2.5.6.(e), it says..

          (e) If the current LSA is functionally the same as an
              installed LSA (i.e., same destination, cost and non-zero
              forwarding address) then apply the following priorities in
              deciding which LSA is preferred:

                 1. A Type-7 LSA with the P-bit set.

                 2. A Type-5 LSA.

                 3. The LSA with the higher router ID.

Points 1 and 2 are clear..

However Point 3 specifies preference of an LSA with a higher router ID. Why is it so?

-          Should we not install ECMP paths in this case?

-          Is point 3 actually intended for NSSA translators to prefer a Type 7 LSA which needs to be used for translation to Type 5?

Considering the above 2 points, I guess point 3 needs to be modified in the RFC to probably say..

                    3. Preference is same, install ECMP paths.
                       Additionally if the router is an NSSA translator, prefer the LSA with higher router ID for Type 7-Type 5 translation.

Please let know any views/comments on the same.

Regards,
Balaji

[OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preference cl… Balaji Ganesh (balagane)
Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preferenc… Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preferenc… Balaji Ganesh (balagane)
Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preferenc… Chao Fu
Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preferenc… Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preferenc… Jeff Tantsura
Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preferenc… Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preferenc… Acee Lindem (acee)
Re: [OSPF] RFC 3101 NSSA/External Route preferenc… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)