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

Acee Lindem <> Wed, 23 October 2013 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB79D11E827D for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.627
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NShSqL32vGNB for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C9311E8293 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-b7fe28e000000d82-b7-52685157442d
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 49.E7.03458.75158625; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 00:44:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:44:38 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <>
To: Anton Smirnov <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:44:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlG54YEaQQd93aYuWbawWzZc2s1u0 3LvHbrHn3VpGixuP9jI7sHq0fZnM5DHl90ZWjyVLfjJ5XG+6yh7AEsVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV 0bh2BmtBj1jF+4lrmBoYlwp2MXJySAiYSBzs6GCCsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCUUeJExxooZzmj xMrLc9hBqtgEdCSeP/rHDGKLCKhJbL77iRWkiFlgMqPEnCuvgYo4OIQFMiX+X/cDMUUEsiTa 15pAlLtJnNh8jRUkzCKgKjF1EiNImFfAV2Lu3ilgEzkFNCU2nvkDFmcEuuf7qTVgtzELiEvc ejIf6k4BiSV7zjND2KISLx//YwWxRQX0JLpnLWeFiCtLLHmynwWiV0diwe5PbBC2tcTd31Og ZmpLLFv4mhniBkGJkzOfsExgFJ+FZN0sJO2zkLTPQtI+C0n7AkbWVYwcpcWpZbnpRoabGIEx eEyCzXEH44JPlocYpTlYlMR5v7x1DhISSE8sSc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXA2KS84snl x/P31jX67wxiUBLf4r747c6Vtzwjdv6YKq9QybHy/H0Jrw1PX7tej3V8f7SILWbbH37Jr0ui +6pX1cmqhBzMjzwrNpdb4ou50Pw7E36zhEav856kb/ZykufqcMeIu48idN9XlexrdmtPnrMo p1Hj1l2DJ74cDFmyai+aclfn3nk3V4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRAFafmP2PAgAA
Cc: OSPF List <>, Harish Raghuveer <>, Rob Shakir <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:44:50 -0000

Hi Anton,

On 10/23/13 5:09 AM, "Anton Smirnov" <> wrote:

>    Hi Acce,
>    you are just not formulating your objections in the correct way. For
>example, if specification said that Tag TLV must not exceed 64 Kb in
>size that would technically put a bound but this would be both pointless
>and wouldn't satisfy you.

The applicability statement in section 3 of RFC 4970 is clear. It has
nothing to do with how I formulate my objections ;^)

>    Another part is why RI LSA is being singled out - why unbound data
>in, say, Network LSA is OK and unbound data in RI LSA is not? Especially
>given that RI LSA can be extended to the adjacent LSIDs and the Network
>LSA cannot.

This is a terrible analogy. The Network LSA has a single purpose and is
bounded by the number of OSPF routers on a LAN. In this case, the TLV has
no bound and implementors could come up with all sorts of clever ways to
encode the data. 

>    Tag data ARE expected to be very small and very stable, so the
>choice of RI LSA to advertise them is very reasonable.

I've heard requirements that contradict this statement in this E-mail


>On 10/22/2013 10:05 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>> I don't disagree that the typical use case is a single tag with the
>> likelihood of mult-tag use cases diminishing exponentially as the
>> number of tags increases. My point is that unbounded TLVs MUST NOT be
>> included in the OSPF RI LSA. What part of that is hard to
>> understand? I think that 16 is a reasonable maximum and that beyond
>> 16 would imply encoding ulterior information that should have its own
>> TLV or LSA anyway. Acee
>> On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Anton Smirnov wrote:
>>> Hi Acee, it looks to me that the most probable deployment will use
>>> 1 tag. Router advertising 100 tags already sounds unreasonable.
>>> Defining new LSID to originate LSA with (typically) only 4 bytes of
>>> useful information is not optimal. Choice of RI LSA to advertise
>>> some small data is reasonable. RI LSA is far from getting too big.
>>> If there is a concern of RI LSA overfilling then we can extend
>>> range of opaque IDs - but is it really necessary at this point?
>>> Anton
>>> On 10/21/2013 09:55 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>>>> I think we are in a circular argument here and I'm not discuss
>>>> this independently with each of the authors. Either you have to
>>>> limit the number of tags, define a new LSA, or do the work to
>>>> make RI LSA multi-instance. All are viable alternatives with
>>>> differing pros and cons - including it in the existing RI LSA is
>>>> not a viable alternative. Remember to request a session if you
>>>> plan to present it at IETF 88.
>>>> Thanks, Acee