Re: [OSPF] regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 13 January 2016 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B511A879A for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:06:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.292
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_71=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 1TRejVWVo3tr for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:06:46 -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 8F1B91A1B65 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:06:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5300; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1452672405; x=1453882005; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HgXZW0fuvCbmuyoQghX0Jde5zKuXCrjl5Z7Abol5oCA=; b=PxxLJbemF7zcyPRn9NUYg2KWx1FbfA9p1HgKXsruHVtXuSIcvAcaOC8d sfKFku8apqxY9SYsv2uT9FC7pLnf6g7vTG0Z49rDL6/ouvDXNn170ZNOI yPRZ8l+FRiTyQROe4h4YVUv6E4o3PX8Z0tEiF1hE3elBY/p8uN8O/xHC1 g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CtBABBBZZW/xbLJq1ehAxtiFm1GRgKh?= =?us-ascii?q?W0CgXUBAQEBAQGBC4Q0AQEBBAEBATUdGQoRCxEDAQIBCRYIBwkDAgECARUfCQg?= =?us-ascii?q?GAQwGAgEBiCoOv2oBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYhlaEf4QmCgcBS4Q6A?= =?us-ascii?q?QSHZY8whi2HLYFehESDB4VXimGDc2SECz00hFEJF4ErAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,288,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="623450096"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jan 2016 08:06:38 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.53] (ams-ppsenak-nitro4.cisco.com [10.60.140.53]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0D86c0x018912; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:06:38 GMT
Message-ID: <5696058D.1040006@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:06:37 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "xuling (F)" <xuling3@huawei.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.53.1452542413.6090.ospf@ietf.org> <7C4B8F3BED3A204AB58199B2ABB235B829CD5609@szxeml523-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C4B8F3BED3A204AB58199B2ABB235B829CD5609@szxeml523-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/tnvRKr4TYuhstYEiLJeNbDl7Y9c>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:06:48 -0000

Ling,

the fundamental flaw in your idea is that you are making the TE 
capability a node property, which is incorrect. TE topology is 
represented by links and as such needs to have per link granularity.


regards,
Peter

On 1/13/16 08:58 , xuling (F) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> the mechanism in draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis maybe highly expect to be used once well defined. If it works, we don't need to define a new mechanism to solve the first issue, maybe for new mechanism incompatible problem would also occur.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Ling
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:33:12 +0100
> From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
> To: "xuling (F)" <xuling3@huawei.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
> Message-ID: <56935AB8.5010202@cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Hi Ling,
>
> On 1/7/16 03:52 , xuling (F) wrote:
>> Hi Acee,
>>
>> I suggest to advertise SRLG only in the TE opaque LSA, and advertise
>> TE capability to help understand whether node is TE enabled. If node
>> isn?t TE enabled , SRLG shouldn?t be used for TE application;
>> otherwise, SRLG can be used for TE application or for other application purposes.
>
> above would be incompatible with the existing implementations, as there is no "TE capability" being used today.
>
> regards,
> Peter
>
>>
>> the mechanism to advertise TE capability has been well defined in
>> draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ling
>>
>> Hi Ling,
>>
>> From: OSPF <ospf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org
>> <mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org%3cmailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org>>> on
>> behalf of "xuling (F)" <xuling3@huawei.com<mailto:xuling3@huawei.com
>> <mailto:xuling3@huawei.com%3cmailto:xuling3@huawei.com>>>
>>
>> Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 2:28 AM
>>
>> To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org
>> <mailto:ospf@ietf.org%3cmailto:ospf@ietf.org>>>
>>
>> Subject: [OSPF] regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
>>
>> Hi, all
>>
>> To make the node that is not TE enabled advertises link attributes for
>> other applications, it is worth considering another choice which has
>> least change to the protocol and implementation. The method is:
>> advertising RI capability TLV in RI LSA when advertising TE LSA. TE
>> capability bit in RI capability TLV can indicate whether link
>> attributes should become part of TE topology.
>>
>> In draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis,
>>
>> ?an OSPF router advertising an OSPF RI LSA MAY include the Router
>> Informational Capability TLV?? can be enhanced with: an OSPF router
>> advertising an OSPF RI LSA should include Router Informational
>> Capability TLV which can inform TE capability bit.
>>
>> In this case, some improvement needs to be done in
>> draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis. These are my personal view.
>>
>> The intent of RFC 4970 and the BIS version is that the drafts
>> requiring new capabilities will define them and request IANA
>> allocation as opposed to updating RFC 4970BIS for every new capability.
>>
>> As for the mechanism, I think this would be rather unwieldy to attempt
>> to get SRLG information from different LSAs. Rather, within the OSPF
>> Routing Domain, I?d choose to advertise SRLGs either in the TE LSAs or
>> the Prefix/Link Attribute LSAs.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Acee
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ling XU
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>> xuling
>> ????????Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
>> Company_logo
>>
>> Phone:
>> Fax:
>> Mobile:
>> Email:
>> ??????????????? ???518129
>> Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
>> Bantian, Longgang District,Shenzhen 518129, P.R.China
>> http://www.huawei.com
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>> ????????????????????????????????????
>> ????
>> ????????????????????????????????????
>> ????
>> ???????????????????????????????????
>> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
>> HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address
>> is listed above.
>> Any use of the
>> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited
>> to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by
>> persons other than the intended
>> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error,
>> please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of OSPF Digest, Vol 119, Issue 5
> ************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> .
>