IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 16 October 2015 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 138041B319C; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 R8WEcxzusCfp; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EF381B3197; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2398; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1445010021; x=1446219621; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=bWVlKILt8Df6ROmU/X8rIk94CgmKkyacQWGh/eV+ZXE=; b=mAOHytzzhyePic4DW4j+D2Ewi6FUSq9C/SIwQhnvDWoYVELQe353gM9o f26W5vS2kLBv/iDsVtVN5QWhSgh7UkkAYhn8jpH6bjQTXvPKlJovF3DKk q6RS+ApFY1X86RtKZ8M2yVEZPHyDYg5UTFXWD8TIi+hsLlmXWRpgoAOO2 c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AXAgBzGSFW/5tdJa1egyZUbga9ZwENgVkXCoV9AhyBGDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCcBAQQBAQEgEToLEAIBCBgCAh8HAgICHwYLFRACBAENBYgZAxINsDOOEA2FAwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEgSKKUoJQgiIbB4JpgUUBBJYdAYsmgXSUR4dIAR8BAUKCER0WgT9xhGGBBgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,689,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="36367690"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2015 15:40:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9GFeK4F032294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:40:20 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:40:04 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:40:04 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Anil Kumar S N <anil.ietf@gmail.com>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRBcJvLL/ypjzyUkSUc2T68+cxGJ5sUYCAgAAuTQCAAbA8AP//5uGAgABXaoCAABZCgIAAAQmA//++nID///1rzQACtAUA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:40:04 +0000
Message-ID: <D24691F1.36A69%acee@cisco.com>
References: <20151013142127.29680.19611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381AA752314C8677284A2F5D53E0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D244F4BA.DB9E8%aretana@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381A540ECC4E6F62651BF6ED53D0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D2464C12.DBDFA%aretana@cisco.com> <etPan.5620f609.42befee7.19d1@piccolo.local> <D2467F6C.DBF6D%aretana@cisco.com> <etPan.5621091b.7b9078ae.ae6d@jivecommunications.com> <D24681AA.36A15%acee@cisco.com> <D2468413.DBF91%aretana@cisco.com> <5621166b.29e5420a.f08a5.ffffab89@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <5621166b.29e5420a.f08a5.ffffab89@mx.google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.199]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8648AFA08BE1C643A7DED871BC0F1B31@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/mZqqGwvUlbMC1js3v_KZ0iPppH8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.ad@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag.shepherd@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag@ietf.org>, "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:40:23 -0000

IESG removed - only the OSPF faithful retained…

On 10/16/15, 11:23 AM, "Anil Kumar S N" <anil.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi!
>
>Even if tags are ordered we are not going to achieve much; when lsa is
>received on refresh interval, all received tags must be verified against
>tags available in lsdb. Worst case the last tag in the ordered list is
>missing. So Ordering is not going to help m
>uch.

I don’t see this is a problem since the refresh interval is 1/2 the MaxAge
interval. 

>
>I do feel tags can be unordered.


We agree here. 

Thanks,
Acee 


>
>With regards 
>Anil S N
>
>Sent from my Cyanogen phone
>
>On Oct 16, 2015 8:09 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> On 10/16/15, 10:31 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi! 
>>
>> >This is a great discussion! It is unfortunate that it did not occur
>> >earlier on the OSPF WG list.
>>
>> Couldn't agree more! :-)
>>
>> . . . 
>> >On 10/16/15, 10:26 AM, "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh> wrote:
>> > 
>> >>. . . 
>> >>I prefer leaving "MUST be considered unordered² in the document, I
>> >>currently cannot envisage any use cases that would need to consider
>> >>ordering (in general, I think this can be dealt with by creating a
>>new 
>> >>tag). 
>> > 
>> >In thinking about this and case of nondeterministic behavior with
>>varying 
>> >implementation ordering, I think we should keep it as unordered and
>> >discourage the creation of policies that are sensitive to ordering.
>>
>> Ok..that's fine with me.
>>
>> Thanks! 
>>
>> Alvaro. 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email