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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 90E15128BC8 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 08:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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=-0.001, 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 0yWFhD8qputu for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 08:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EBD312762F for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 May 2017 08:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14161; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493997272; x=1495206872; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=6mjmOeWRBE9Sp8Z4EmaEoyAgrFORGdtK55Amlo3INew=; b=kdYsuTX8FQvhov4NCRAj6LmKfetO1IRV5xqmeBF9mxC6mm/mcBo2xrNF sXR5Ky8nAGo0VoLqBPrJQ4n25ZECWy9Hlj0QYdVcinZt3RCVe1B4c7Beu KCMOFopEC3ZHBSyNXnshnxBcYJjhYOTEDCCpst0KhnZw2APx1q0U/OF8N A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C+AQArlgxZ/4MNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm5ngW4Hg2GKGJFWkDiFOIIPhiQCGoQvPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?VAQEBAQMjCkAMEAIBCBEDAQIoAwICAjAUCQgCBA4FG4oFsTeCJoppAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYg8AYMbhD87CQaCYIJfBZ1vAZMWggSFOYorlDYBHzi?= =?us-ascii?q?BCm8VRoUogUp2hjiBMIENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.38,293,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="23703485"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 May 2017 15:14:31 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v45FEUOU003072 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 May 2017 15:14:30 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 5 May 2017 11:14:30 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 5 May 2017 11:14:30 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: prz <prz@zeta2.ch>
CC: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
Thread-Index: AQHSxQanGGW4vWTLFUe0gcAxuCky/6Hkn50AgAF8kID//75WAA==
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 15:14:30 +0000
Message-ID: <D5320E98.ACF48%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D530EF1D.ACB7C%acee@cisco.com> <D53106AD.ACBA9%acee@cisco.com> <c74bd39c55533350e96a1884b7ed9af1@zeta2.ch>
In-Reply-To: <c74bd39c55533350e96a1884b7ed9af1@zeta2.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5320E98ACF48aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/v4SvD_aSjF3kB3j-1PyYDt4MqzY>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 05 May 2017 15:14:34 -0000

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.

Thanks,
Acee

From: prz <prz@zeta2.ch<mailto:prz@zeta2.ch>>
Date: Friday, May 5, 2017 at 11:09 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"


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



On Thu, 4 May 2017 20:27:27 +0000, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote:
Speaking as a WG member:

I believe we should move forward with this simple mechanism for OSPFv2 neighbors to learn each other’s interface ID. Both IS-IS and, more importantly, OSPFv3 learn the interface ID via their respective hello mechanisms. Just because one implementation has repurposed the Generalized MPL (GMPL) extensions described in RFC 4302 for interface ID learning is not a reason to preclude using the more generally accepted IGP Hello packet learning. Additionally, there is the undesirable side effect of TE LSAs resulting in inclusion in the TE topology for multiple implementations.

Finally, when the right technical direction is clear and there is rough consensus, the OSPF WG MUST NOT be obstructed.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>
Subject: WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement"
This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment that a solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption and we are now doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your support or objection by May 20th, 2017.
Thanks,
Acee