Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt

Acee Lindem <acee@lindem.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@lindem.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDC921F9A8D for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id atOqRrFhHNAZ for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.120]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B892611E81D3 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=AOHYjtsI c=1 sm=0 a=C2g1Hp6idNFTy4K9KrF8yg==:17 a=x7FEv9pE1mkA:10 a=r5VoNJ4UmnsA:10 a=Wma4Of2gTTwA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=QYaTxUjTAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=cln1f0h_RF4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=uMSBuXpSb8vDAXup2lgA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=E6k37eg1NvgA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=kArU_8CLA2fducO-:21 a=Nhk3TMI9k8O_9pl3:21 a=C2g1Hp6idNFTy4K9KrF8yg==:117
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-Authenticated-User:
X-Originating-IP: 65.190.0.120
Received: from [65.190.0.120] ([65.190.0.120:63885] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from <acee@lindem.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 04/1F-18682-93745625; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:24:41 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Acee Lindem <acee@lindem.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131021150847.GA7980@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:24:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A3679221-7FFC-4CE2-81C1-4E391619AC93@lindem.com>
References: <20131021105352.29409.44644.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0cda3481d5ba41afaf0c61a5bc434b40@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE470309FF23@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <75E8F047-BCC2-44AA-8EAC-B9C70226A308@juniper.net> <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030A00A0@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <20131021135153.GA7872@juniper.net> <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030A027F@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <20131021150847.GA7980@juniper.net>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, Rob Shakir <rob.shakir@bt.com>, Harish Raghuveer <hraghuveer@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:24:49 -0000

On Oct 21, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 02:10:04PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote:
> | 
> | On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> | 
> |      On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:32:54PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote:
> |      | Hannes,
> |      |
> |      | On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
> |      |
> |      | > acee,
> |      | >
> |      | > why should we give an upper boundary on things which
> |      | > - might be subject to change and
> |      | > - which have a historic track record of being underestimated.
> |      |
> |      | You don't have to - just request a separate OSPFv2 opaque LSA and
> |      IPv6 OSPFv3 LSA from IANA.
> |      | Another alternative would be to extend the RI LSA to be multi-
> |      instance and relegate the variable length tags to an instance other
> |      than instance 0.
> | 
> |      again the question why i do have to ?
> |      i can perfectly fit in single-digit as well as a few dozens of colors
> |      in a single RI LSA
> |      - what is your concern - except that we may use inappropriate large
> |      space for TE ?
> |      any reasonable implementation SHOULD restrict the node color set,
> |      such
> |      that overwhelming the 64K of RI LSPs is not going to happen.
> | 
> | We don't want a standard that leaves room for &quot;unreasonable&quot;
> | implementations ;^). I think the policy in RFC 4970 is clear. Here is an
> | excerpt:
> 
> oh boy - i wish i could let the non-sense disappear just with good
> standard docs ;-) - but i hear you - so all you're asking for is an
> upper boundary ? - is 128 low enough to not scare you and
> be compliant to the below paragraph.

Actually, I think separate LSAs is a better alternative. 



> 
> | 3.  Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability
> | 
> |    The purpose of the Router Information (RI) LSA is to advertise
> |    information relating to the aggregate OSPF router.  Normally, this
> |    should be confined to TLVs with a single value or very few values.
> |    It is not meant to be a generic container to carry any and all
> |    information.  The intent is to both limit the size of the RI LSA to
> |    the point where an OSPF router will always be able to contain the
> |    TLVs in a single LSA and to keep the task of determining what has
> |    changed between LSA instances reasonably simple.  Hence, discretion
> |    and sound engineering judgment will need to be applied when deciding
> |    whether newly proposed TLV(s) in support of a new application are
> |    advertised in the RI LSA or warrant the creation of an application
> |    specific LSA.
> | 
> | 
> | Anyway, this hasn't even been presented or accepted as a WG document. 
> 
> which is not a reason why we should not discuss how to iron out the bumpy parts now.

Right.

Thanks,
Acee 


> 
> thanks !
> 
> /hannes
> 
> |      | > the 'per-link' admin-groups serve as a good example here:
> |      | > initially conceived as &quot;you won't ever need more than
> |      32&quot; we have
> |      | > now arrived at a variable length (unbounded) extension.
> |      | >
> |      | > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-osborne-mpls-extended-admin-
> |      groups-00
> |      | >
> |      | > for a humorous take to it, have a look at
> |      | > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1925
> |      | > rule (9) and (10)
> |      | >
> |      | > /hannes
> |      | >
> |      | > On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
> |      | >
> |      | >> Hi Shraddha,
> |      | >> Since the size of the tag data is unbounded, could you either
> |      put it in a separate OSPFv2 opaque LSA and OSPFv3 LSA or limit the
> |      size to some maximum number of tags, e.g., 16?  
> |      | >> Thanks,
> |      | >> Acee
> |      | >> On Oct 21, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
> |      | >>
> |      | >>> Hi All,
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> We have posted a draft on &quot; Advertising per-node
> |      administrative tags in OSPF&quot; and would like to hear your views
> |      on it. Please feel free to raise any suggestion/comment on the
> |      content.
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> Rgds
> |      | >>> Shraddha
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> -----Original Message-----
> |      | >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-
> |      drafts@ietf.org]
> |      | >>> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 4:24 PM
> |      | >>> To: Harish Raghuveer; Shraddha Hegde; British Telecom; Hannes
> |      Gredler; Rob Shakir
> |      | >>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-
> |      admin-tag-00.txt
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> A new version of I-D, draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
> |      | >>> has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to
> |      the IETF repository.
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> Filename: draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
> |      | >>> Revision: 00
> |      | >>> Title: Advertising per-node administrative tags in OSPF
> |      | >>> Creation date:  2013-10-21
> |      | >>> Group: Individual Submission
> |      | >>> Number of pages: 6
> |      | >>> URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
> |      hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
> |      | >>> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-
> |      ospf-node-admin-tag
> |      | >>> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-ospf-
> |      node-admin-tag-00
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> Abstract:
> |      | >>> This document describes an extension to OSPF protocol [RFC2328]
> |      to
> |      | >>> add an optional operational capability, that allows tagging and
> |      | >>> grouping of the nodes in an OSPF domain.  This allows
> |      | >>> simplification,ease of management and control over route and
> |      path
> |      | >>> selection based on configured policies.
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate
> |      per-
> |      | >>> node admin-tags to the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocols.
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time
> |      of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> |      tools.ietf.org.
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> The IETF Secretariat
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>>
> |      | >>> _______________________________________________
> |      | >>> 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
> |      | >>
> |      | >>
> |      | >
> |      | >
> |      |
> |      |
> |      |
> | 
> | 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf