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

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Mon, 21 October 2013 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@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 9054C11E8263 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 WBlFahF9wruI for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D5221F84F9 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail107-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.229) by AM1EHSOBE009.bigfish.com (10.3.204.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:56 +0000
Received: from mail107-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail107-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D85E10014E; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -28
X-BigFish: VPS-28(zz98dI9371I936eI1454I146fIc430I542I1432I4015I14ffIzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah8275dh1de097h186068hz2fh2a8h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail107-am1: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=shraddha@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(13464003)(52044002)(51704005)(53754006)(377424004)(199002)(189002)(377454003)(164054003)(52314003)(502244003)(24454002)(85306002)(81542001)(74706001)(66066001)(74876001)(80022001)(65816001)(81342001)(74366001)(63696002)(69226001)(81816001)(81686001)(59766001)(77982001)(76482001)(83072001)(4396001)(19580405001)(83322001)(33646001)(19580395003)(80976001)(54316002)(56776001)(31966008)(74662001)(74502001)(47446002)(47736001)(47976001)(50986001)(49866001)(74316001)(76786001)(15975445006)(76796001)(53806001)(15202345003)(46102001)(76576001)(51856001)(79102001)(54356001)(56816003)(77096001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB143; H:BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:116.197.178.83; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail107-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail107-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 138238499523516_610; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.235]) by mail107-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0206E380041; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by AM1EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (10.3.207.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:50 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB143.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.153) by BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:39 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.24) by BY2PR05MB143.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.39.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.800.7; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:37 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.230]) by BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.230]) with mapi id 15.00.0785.001; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:36 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOzpMDx5lxv/i7nUS1brjwnOUyb5n/ju3Q
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:36 +0000
Message-ID: <a7fe1ca5fbde4befb1f89a64415a4279@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.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> <A3679221-7FFC-4CE2-81C1-4E391619AC93@lindem.com> <a7c6d5f6d71843749315fec9fd204282@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030A1B71@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030A1B71@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [116.197.178.83]
x-forefront-prvs: 00064751B6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
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 19:52:35 -0000

The "Applicability" section of the draft talks about why RI LSA is chosen as the node-tag TLV carrier instead of TE LSA.

The point I am trying make here is, if the link-color is carried in a TLV,
Node color could also be carried in TLV and we don't need a new LSA for that.

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 12:53 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde
Cc: Acee Lindem; Hannes Gredler; OSPF List; Rob Shakir; Harish Raghuveer
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt


On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Shraddha Hegde wrote:

> <Acee> Actually, I think separate LSAs is a better alternative.
> 
> <Shraddha> Node-tag is a just another property of the node. OSPFv2/v3 
> have achieved the desired functionality using numerous link/node properties using TLVs in TE-LSA so I don't see an absolute necessity of going with a new LSA.

Shraddha - If you think the Router-Information LSA is the same as the TE LSA you have not read RFC 4970. 

Acee 


> 
> Rgds
> Shraddha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Acee Lindem
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 8:55 PM
> To: Hannes Gredler
> Cc: OSPF List; Rob Shakir; Harish Raghuveer
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for 
> draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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