IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone (TTZ) Next Steps

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Tue, 09 July 2013 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes@juniper.net>
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 E073C21F9AF1 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.033
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 XK7qS-4thPPY for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db9lp0251.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A367621F85B3 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail34-db9-R.bigfish.com (10.174.16.225) by DB9EHSOBE033.bigfish.com (10.174.14.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:50 +0000
Received: from mail34-db9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail34-db9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A507BA0006A for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.50; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -23
X-BigFish: VPS-23(zz98dI9371I1432Izz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1033IL17326ah8275dhz2fh2a8h683h839h946hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h14ddh1504h1537h162dh1631h1662h1758h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1e23h1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail34-db9: domain of juniper.net designates 66.129.224.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.224.50; envelope-from=hannes@juniper.net; helo=P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ; -HQ.jnpr.net ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:132.245.2.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BN1PRD0512HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail34-db9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail34-db9 (MessageSwitch) id 1373390448679186_15673; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB9EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.16.237]) by mail34-db9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9709CDC0048 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (66.129.224.50) by DB9EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.174.14.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:47 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:20:46 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:20:45 -0700
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.186) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:33:28 -0700
Received: from mail156-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.245) by CO1EHSOBE018.bigfish.com (10.243.66.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:44 +0000
Received: from mail156-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail156-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DD8A4026B for <ospf@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail156-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail156-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1373390441620685_10242; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.244]) by mail156-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9444EDC0054; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BN1PRD0512HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (132.245.2.21) by CO1EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (10.243.66.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:38 +0000
Received: from selmane-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net (193.110.54.36) by pod51010.outlook.com (10.255.193.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.329.3; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:20:38 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE471993A4@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:20:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <38B62731-B738-4FCE-B7D9-80F17244AFCB@juniper.net>
References: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE471993A4@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Originating-IP: [193.110.54.36]
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ERICSSON.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone (TTZ) Next Steps
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:20:58 -0000

scaling a link-state protocols route-calculation path (SPF and RIB-Walk)
to support 1000s of nodes is an already solved problem.
solving it again, (just different this time) is of limited use …

quite contrary - i fail to see how *hiding* information (i.e. nodes and links
along with their TE attributes) does not break some of the TE eco-system
that has been built around link-state IGPs. i am particularly interested
how  TE use-cases requiring admission-control and pre-emption play with TTZ.

/hannes

On Jul 6, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:

> As WG chair, I'd like to initiate a discussion on this technology. We've had it presented at the last couple IETFs and there are varying opinions on its usefulness. 
> For reference:
> 
>  Base Document: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chen-ospf-ttz-05.txt
>  Applicability: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chen-ospf-ttz-app-03.txt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email