Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Fri, 08 April 2016 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@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 B0F2812D789 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 SZLQ9iACLmEO for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD61512D783 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5412; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460086778; x=1461296378; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LG0vpFNX2U+jGMifoJkrdBm6/T/T5rF0JjFAayy2LmY=; b=YP4rECVuoSj/I/iQPLmz+TNltkvwTjYhpKrg2zeKeVqiprCWWeM3g+1Y jjQ60XnyLydWqGheZk7+40nhLMCTkumjvlYhdIXPJhrZfhFmWkkQfQsff nxeFH0uyZzv7aMeQKz0+fC25zHsB7P31rJsW8txtaRcB65icqFdJbnYLD 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D8AQAwJwdX/5RdJa1dgzdTfQa6QAENg?= =?us-ascii?q?XMXCoVsAhyBIzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEEBAQEDAQEBASAROhAHBAIBCBEEAQEDAiM?= =?us-ascii?q?DAgICJQsUAQgIAgQBEgiIFwgOsAqSDwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREEf?= =?us-ascii?q?IUlhEuHP4JWBZgEAYV2iA6BboRNiFmPJAEeAQFCgjKBNWyIO34BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,449,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="91309017"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2016 03:39:37 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u383db1F016408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 03:39:37 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:39:36 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:39:36 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
Thread-Index: AQHRf/Ho6WRxQA5zQE2bUJRokiTbP59dC0kggCJ0YZCAABBu8A==
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 03:39:36 +0000
Message-ID: <ed813e82142149c2a22a2c6681929fd1@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <D30F89DE.51A65%acee@cisco.com> <e1c1685f2856424c939bfbea4a5d90a3@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <1B502206DFA0C544B7A6046915200863580014D7@eusaamb106.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A6046915200863580014D7@eusaamb106.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.126.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/nQkTT5TyK7g5BWTt__VCWN_URgc>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 08 Apr 2016 03:39:40 -0000

Uma -

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:uma.chunduri@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 8:03 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Acee Lindem (acee); OSPF WG List
> Subject: RE: WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for Agile
> Service Deployment"
> 
> Les,
> 
> In-line [Uma]:
> 
> --
> Uma C.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:41 PM
> To: Acee Lindem (acee); OSPF WG List
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for
> Agile Service Deployment"
> 
> My opinion of the draft has not changed.
> It is defining a way to utilize OSPF to send application information - which is
> not something the protocol should be used to do.
> Further, it leaves definition of the new codepoints and formats of the
> information advertised completely unspecified - the latest draft revision
> states:
> 
> " The meaning of the operator-defined sub-TLV is totally opaque to OSPF
>    and is defined by the network local policy and is controlled via
>    configuration.  "
> 
> How interoperability is achieved is not addressed at all.
> 
> [Uma]: The whole point of the draft is,  not to define the format for the sub-
> TLVs so that it can be used  as per the sub-tlv type as set by the operator (for
> example service attribute/Label).  Sub-TLV has set of attribute length and
> attribute value in NBO.
> 
[Les:] Yes - I know. :-)
And I think this is a "disaster waiting to happen".

On this point I think we currently have no common ground.

   Les

> IS-IS has taken a much more stringent approach to a similar request.
> 
> [Uma]: .. and hence unfortunately I see no body saw using it- in fact including
> you. For example https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-
> discriminator-02 could have used GENAPP but rather resorted to Router
> capabilities (Remember IETF90 discussion around this).
> 
> RFC 6823 (GENAPP) requires that information sent in the generic container
> TLV MUST be based on a public specification - and that an application specific
> ID for the application using this mechanism be assigned by IANA. This
> addresses the interoperability issue.
> GENAPP further specifies that such information SHOULD be advertised by a
> separate instance of the routing protocol (as specified in RFC 6822(MI)) so as
> to minimize the impact of the application information flooding on the
> performance of the routing protocol.
> 
> [Uma]: As I indicated earlier [I-D.ietf-ospf-transport-instance] can be
> definitely used if the information related to application need to be used
> there. If it is used for supporting routing one can use this TLV.
> 
> 
> 
> Without addressing both of these issues I cannot support the draft.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> > (acee)
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:09 PM
> > To: OSPF WG List
> > Subject: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "Using Operator-defined TLVs for
> > Agile Service Deployment"
> >
> > We’ve discussed this draft a number of times. In my opinion, it seems
> > like a useful mechanism if one envisions a generalized API between
> > OSPF and user and third-party applications to convey
> > application-specific information learned from other OSPF routers. In
> > many respects, this has already been envisioned for OSPF Node Tags.
> > Please indicate your opinion on this draft before March 31st, 2016.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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