[OSPF] Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt
Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 14 November 2006 00:03 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjlm1-0003P1-Rp; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:33 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjlm0-0003Oo-Fn for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:32 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gjllz-0007eI-3f for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:32 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2006 16:03:29 -0800
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAE03TCh020514; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:29 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kAE03TDM010393; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:29 -0500
Received: from [10.82.208.5] ([10.82.208.5]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:29 -0500
Message-ID: <455907D0.5010706@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:28 -0500
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2006 00:03:29.0308 (UTC) FILETIME=[509DDDC0:01C70780]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2912; t=1163462609; x=1164326609; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=acee@cisco.com; z=From:=20Acee=20Lindem=20<acee@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Comments=20on=20draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20OSPF=20List=20<ospf@ietf.org>; bh=46iV3mtq4HGZvl0Mz0PoOUCqurygaggFyiz4YfFuBTw=; b=yLvQKsch/W+hCmD40cdTveNDXEa3wGHPCWMdyptHwkDUYiy9Nzhw79nM53qfyqzTVUv5ybjh okEnsQCAsEoZ9aSfEo3d733KgCqmeoBr7eyIJp+F661clBapqWNZl1pB;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=acee@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1
Cc:
Subject: [OSPF] Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Lou, My main comment is on section 5 (6 is your draft). The draft adds mandatory reachability checking for AS scoped opaque LSAs. If we add mandatory reachability checking, it should be for all opaque types rather reading like the constraint is unique to AS scoped opaque LSAs (type 11s). I also think we should put the question as to whether the checking should be madatory or relaxed a bit to allow an application to check less frequently if the opaque data is stale. Detailed comments: Section 2, third paragraph - "aligned" rather than "qaligned". Section 3, "Section 7" rather than "Section 7." Section 3.1 - Type 9 LSA - "keep" rather than "keepk". I believe we should discard a link-local LSA received from a neighbor not on the interface (text similiar to type 11). Section 3.1, Since the area ID is not in the LSA header, the bullet on area flooding is confusing. It should say something to the effect of only flooding type 10 LSAs out interfaces in the LSA's associated area. I don't care if it said this in RFC 2370 and everyone knew what it implied. Section 3.1, 2nd to last paragraph: "An opaque" rather than "a opaque". Swap sections 5 and 6 since "inter-area" is more the "meat" of the draft. In fact, if the opaque MIB objects are all covered in the new MIB, we can probably remove the "management section". Section 6 (will be 5) 5. Opaque LSA Validation Opaque LSAs are not processed during the SPF calculation as described in section 16 of [OSPF]. However, they are subject to the same reachability constraints as the base LSA types. This implies that originating router MUST be reachable for the advertised application specific data to be considered valid. 5.1 Inter-Area Considerations ...... Section 5.1 Type-9 opaque LSAs and type-10 opaque LSAs do not have this problem as a receiving router can detect an a loss of reachability through the intra-area SPF calculation. Section 5.1 To enable OSPF routers in remote areas to check availability of the originator of link-state type 11 opaque LSAs, the orignators of type-11 opaque LSAs are considered Autonomous System Border Routers (ASBRs) and will advertise themselves as such. Section 5.1 - Remove "It is important to note that this solution MUST NOT ..." This is redundant. Remove numbered items (1) and (2), these actions ARE NOT new to opaque LSAs. Make (3) a separate paragraph rather than numbered item. Section 10.1 - Correct NSSA reference to RFC 3101. Section 12.1 - Add D and MT bits with informative references to [RFC 4576] and the [OSPF-MT] drafts. "All eight bit ..." rather than "Six bits..". General - Replace "stub area" with "stub or NSSA areas". Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
- [OSPF] Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370bis-0… Acee Lindem
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Lou Berger
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Acee Lindem
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Lou Berger
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Acee Lindem
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Lou Berger
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2… Acee Lindem
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Lou Berger
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Acee Lindem
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Lou Berger
- [OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-berger-ospf-rfc2370b… Acee Lindem