Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"

prz <> Sat, 06 May 2017 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF80126DD9 for <>; Sat, 6 May 2017 09:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1mR7rI-ZU6c7 for <>; Sat, 6 May 2017 09:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A206120454 for <>; Sat, 6 May 2017 09:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) (Authenticated sender: prz) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0AAF4CC07; Sat, 6 May 2017 18:58:16 +0200 (CEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_441c9ca5b7a6f4e028473e337344564d"
Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 09:58:16 -0700
From: prz <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
Cc: OSPF WG List <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.4.2
X-MailScanner-ID: 0AAF4CC07.A6B3E
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 16:58:34 -0000

Hey Acee,  

1. looking fwd to read the revision with backwards
compatibility section and definition which Hello FSM states the
extension applies to 

2. I try to read what you say carefully but
please clarify: there's nothing in rfc5613 that prevents LLC on any link
so do you mean, you suggest to use this TLV on unnumbered links _only_?
Or do you suggest that RFC3630 implies somehow that LS TE LSAs are used
on unnumbered links _only_? If so, I don't see anything in the RFC to
this effect ...  

--- tony  

On Fri, 5 May 2017 15:14:30 +0000, "Acee
Lindem (acee)"  wrote:  
Hi Tony,  

The authors will cover this in the
next revision. Based on discussions, the usage of link-scoped TE LSAs is
limited to unnumbered point-to-point links. If this is the case, the
backward compatibility is much simpler than the other discussions we've
been having.  


From: prz 
Date: Friday, May 5, 2017 at
11:09 AM
To: Acee Lindem 
Cc: OSPF WG List 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG
Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID

Not sure it made it from my other address so rtx to the
list ...  

A conditional against here ...  
I am fine with adoption if
I see a version that spells the detailed behavior and especially
interactions between RFC4302 and this draft in a detailed section, i.e.
both on, RFC4302 gets configured/unconfigured, are the LLS extensions
advertised on every hello or just until a specific state (like ISIS
padding thingies) and so on ...  
I'd rather have this now than a LC
discussion ...  
The idea is deceptively simple but it is a redundant
mechanism and those always end causing inter-op problems unless cleanly
spelled out ...  
--- tony