IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] Call for WG Adoption "OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels"

Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com> Tue, 10 January 2017 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <asmirnov@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 68BEC129FC4 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:03:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, 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 kypeFPmTlw7x for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:03:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BBE112943C for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:03:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4609; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484057031; x=1485266631; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=y8PHGJHOG3iNFaEb8Ieo40Givj2OBqoaTHKzibRmMzE=; b=CEbhkCqzVjDKm2sjox/gLAg3vcBNtwqu6gBtRq5bxDT1LRRc440xN35g Lc0bAARrRh141FOnXsTO2Cd8/a9WhFFOAFQgVyZ2swn8Q6vlIPb4GAUtI ZF9L2rEpc/Ob/GWtqmWtKxmR8HHese4ZQkpfEet4Ga7Mludf7uEgxjKsW Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,344,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="649678050"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jan 2017 14:03:49 +0000
Received: from [10.55.206.135] (ams-asmirnov-nitro6.cisco.com [10.55.206.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0AE3mhG015854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:03:49 GMT
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <D4951F19.91C27%acee@cisco.com>
From: Anton Smirnov <asmirnov@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems
Message-ID: <157e25b8-0aca-6b38-aa0b-d8e1f4971f36@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:03:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D4951F19.91C27%acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C8CD97A74CE5EF7B1AB43A9A"
X-Authenticated-User: asmirnov
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/nUFpdcCa2FmU-pf1xa2A_oFMtdk>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Call for WG Adoption "OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels"
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:03:53 -0000

    Hello all,

    I support this draft as co-author.

    There exist at least two different ways to implement OSPF routing 
via MPLS TE tunnels signaled by different OSPF instance. These ways are 
NOT fully interoperable. And when there is a question of 
interoperability, IETF OSPF WG has a mandate for standard's actions.

    So IMO the problem posed by this draft is a problem which needs OSPF 
WG attention.

    Solution proposed by this draft is not the most simple to implement 
but authors believe it is the simplest to operate and provides 
reliability guarantee lacked by other approaches. Potential troubles 
with other ways to solve this problem are discussed in the draft's text. 
In other words, authors of the draft valued simplicity of operation over 
simplicity of implementation.


    MPLS TE has somewhat fallen out of favor lately. But this work is 
needed to complement existing OSPF MPLS TE RFCs and applied solution may 
in future be extended to other types of tunnels.

---

Anton Smirnov


On Friday 06 January 2017 16:17, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> This starts a 2-week call for WG Adoption for the subject draft. The 
> adoption call will conclude on January 21st, 2017.
>
> The draft has expired but will be refreshed shortly.
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te-06.txt
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email