Re: [OSPF] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 54C52128854; Fri, 5 May 2017 13:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 fqZJICJuolR2; Fri, 5 May 2017 13:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A730B1293EC; Fri, 5 May 2017 13:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1828; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494017355; x=1495226955; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=0Hsv57GV5kg/Eyo1e58t2fzyMW8Q4oC8sf1etPPFziY=; b=IscmRRKJ/ek387+HtL8hWLffvOL3un/mCLd9siUh0PCA4Xp1ifezs4Tw B0IjS5FY/3fzEjEOCn2EbNhDgvAyOssVq8Z8xwneviEK6+ciS6ZmPzdle QjVeDMbEncvXueRJJ6ZSAGo5amDxVrZBP2luBoQUYci+q0xiSnmmkEhZN I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BDAQBV5AxZ/5JdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1VigQwHg2GKGJFWlXCCDyyFeAIahC8/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRY?= =?us-ascii?q?BBAEjEUUFCwIBCBoCJgICAjAVEAIEAQ0FihgIDrEQgiaKaAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQuKTYRjgwaCXwWWYYcOAZMWkWiUNgEfOIEKbxWHOHYBh2e?= =?us-ascii?q?BDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,294,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="422471146"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 May 2017 20:49:14 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (xch-rtp-009.cisco.com [64.101.220.149]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v45KnEK0007312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 May 2017 20:49:14 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (64.101.220.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 5 May 2017 16:49:14 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 5 May 2017 16:49:13 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <ice@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend@ietf.org>
CC: "ospf-chairs@ietf.org" <ospf-chairs@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend
Thread-Index: AQHSxaN/PlJT3AHjtECePp6ckjGnY6HmNsqA
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 20:49:13 +0000
Message-ID: <D5325BD5.AD265%acee@cisco.com>
References: <B091CE42-20A1-443E-8EE6-DC556DDF4936@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B091CE42-20A1-443E-8EE6-DC556DDF4936@cisco.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: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8A82FCBA3B31B94BB99240AADB8539F5@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/moYZP26Cuvq0Fit-5c1o7Ga3c5o>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 05 May 2017 20:49:17 -0000

+OSPF, Routing Directorate

Thanks for the review Ice!



On 5/5/17, 9:28 AM, "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <ice@cisco.com> wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>I have been selected to do a routing directorate QA review of this draft.
>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14.txt
>
>Summary: 
>
>This draft proposes a new addressing (TLV) format to more easily allow
>additional information to be added as part of a particular LSA. Overall,
>well written, easy to understand what the objective is for this draft.
>
>Comments and Questions:
>
>This looks like a pretty radical change to the OSPFv3 spec. I would
>almost argue to call it OSPFv4..

Experience has proved that new versions are slow to deploy. OSPFv3 is well
positioned to evolve to the next generation IGP.

> Its very unfortunate there are no ‘reserved’ fields in RFC5340 that
>would allow you keep the existing LSA’s format and have some way to
>extend it differently. The TLV approach look good, I can’t see a better
>way to achieve the goal.

No - we struggled with backward compatibility and, due to complexity, went
with with area by area migration as opposed to migration with concurrent
usage of both regular and extended LSAs.

Thanks,
Acee
>
>
>Minor Issues and Nits:
>none.
>
>Thx,
>
>Ice.
>
>
>