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

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Mon, 21 October 2013 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes@juniper.net>
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 51AF011E8401 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jcad6yfezlFd for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co9ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.163.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DDB11E81DE for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail106-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.227) by CO9EHSOBE014.bigfish.com (10.236.130.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:08:58 +0000
Received: from mail106-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail106-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254742008E; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:08:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:132.245.1.149; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BLUPRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -29
X-BigFish: VPS-29(zz98dI9371I936eI1454I146fIc430I542I4015I14ffIzz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah8275dh1de097h186068hz2fh2a8h839h947hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1c0dh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h209eh1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail106-co9: domain of juniper.net designates 132.245.1.149 as permitted sender) client-ip=132.245.1.149; envelope-from=hannes@juniper.net; helo=BLUPRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail106-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail106-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1382368136904605_17275; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:08:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO9EHSMHS027.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.242]) by mail106-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D780E320031; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:08:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BLUPRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (132.245.1.149) by CO9EHSMHS027.bigfish.com (10.236.130.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:08:56 +0000
Received: from juniper.net (193.110.54.36) by pod51010.outlook.com (10.255.215.162) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.371.2; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:08:53 +0000
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:08:47 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <20131021150847.GA7980@juniper.net>
References: <20131021105352.29409.44644.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0cda3481d5ba41afaf0c61a5bc434b40@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE470309FF23@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <75E8F047-BCC2-44AA-8EAC-B9C70226A308@juniper.net> <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030A00A0@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <20131021135153.GA7872@juniper.net> <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030A027F@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030A027F@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Originating-IP: [193.110.54.36]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>, Rob Shakir <rob.shakir@bt.com>, Harish Raghuveer <hraghuveer@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:09:48 -0000

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 02:10:04PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote:
| 
| On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
| 
|      On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:32:54PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote:
|      | Hannes,
|      |
|      | On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
|      |
|      | > acee,
|      | >
|      | > why should we give an upper boundary on things which
|      | > - might be subject to change and
|      | > - which have a historic track record of being underestimated.
|      |
|      | You don't have to - just request a separate OSPFv2 opaque LSA and
|      IPv6 OSPFv3 LSA from IANA.
|      | Another alternative would be to extend the RI LSA to be multi-
|      instance and relegate the variable length tags to an instance other
|      than instance 0.
| 
|      again the question why i do have to ?
|      i can perfectly fit in single-digit as well as a few dozens of colors
|      in a single RI LSA
|      - what is your concern - except that we may use inappropriate large
|      space for TE ?
|      any reasonable implementation SHOULD restrict the node color set,
|      such
|      that overwhelming the 64K of RI LSPs is not going to happen.
| 
| We don't want a standard that leaves room for &quot;unreasonable&quot;
| implementations ;^). I think the policy in RFC 4970 is clear. Here is an
| excerpt:

oh boy - i wish i could let the non-sense disappear just with good
standard docs ;-) - but i hear you - so all you're asking for is an
upper boundary ? - is 128 low enough to not scare you and
be compliant to the below paragraph.
 
| 3.  Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability
| 
|    The purpose of the Router Information (RI) LSA is to advertise
|    information relating to the aggregate OSPF router.  Normally, this
|    should be confined to TLVs with a single value or very few values.
|    It is not meant to be a generic container to carry any and all
|    information.  The intent is to both limit the size of the RI LSA to
|    the point where an OSPF router will always be able to contain the
|    TLVs in a single LSA and to keep the task of determining what has
|    changed between LSA instances reasonably simple.  Hence, discretion
|    and sound engineering judgment will need to be applied when deciding
|    whether newly proposed TLV(s) in support of a new application are
|    advertised in the RI LSA or warrant the creation of an application
|    specific LSA.
| 
| 
| Anyway, this hasn't even been presented or accepted as a WG document. 

which is not a reason why we should not discuss how to iron out the bumpy parts now.

thanks !

/hannes

|      | > the 'per-link' admin-groups serve as a good example here:
|      | > initially conceived as &quot;you won't ever need more than
|      32&quot; we have
|      | > now arrived at a variable length (unbounded) extension.
|      | >
|      | > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-osborne-mpls-extended-admin-
|      groups-00
|      | >
|      | > for a humorous take to it, have a look at
|      | > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1925
|      | > rule (9) and (10)
|      | >
|      | > /hannes
|      | >
|      | > On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
|      | >
|      | >> Hi Shraddha,
|      | >> Since the size of the tag data is unbounded, could you either
|      put it in a separate OSPFv2 opaque LSA and OSPFv3 LSA or limit the
|      size to some maximum number of tags, e.g., 16?  
|      | >> Thanks,
|      | >> Acee
|      | >> On Oct 21, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
|      | >>
|      | >>> Hi All,
|      | >>>
|      | >>> We have posted a draft on &quot; Advertising per-node
|      administrative tags in OSPF&quot; and would like to hear your views
|      on it. Please feel free to raise any suggestion/comment on the
|      content.
|      | >>>
|      | >>> Rgds
|      | >>> Shraddha
|      | >>>
|      | >>> -----Original Message-----
|      | >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-
|      drafts@ietf.org]
|      | >>> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 4:24 PM
|      | >>> To: Harish Raghuveer; Shraddha Hegde; British Telecom; Hannes
|      Gredler; Rob Shakir
|      | >>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-
|      admin-tag-00.txt
|      | >>>
|      | >>>
|      | >>> A new version of I-D, draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
|      | >>> has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to
|      the IETF repository.
|      | >>>
|      | >>> Filename: draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
|      | >>> Revision: 00
|      | >>> Title: Advertising per-node administrative tags in OSPF
|      | >>> Creation date:  2013-10-21
|      | >>> Group: Individual Submission
|      | >>> Number of pages: 6
|      | >>> URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
|      hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt
|      | >>> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-
|      ospf-node-admin-tag
|      | >>> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-ospf-
|      node-admin-tag-00
|      | >>>
|      | >>>
|      | >>> Abstract:
|      | >>> This document describes an extension to OSPF protocol [RFC2328]
|      to
|      | >>> add an optional operational capability, that allows tagging and
|      | >>> grouping of the nodes in an OSPF domain.  This allows
|      | >>> simplification,ease of management and control over route and
|      path
|      | >>> selection based on configured policies.
|      | >>>
|      | >>> This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate
|      per-
|      | >>> node admin-tags to the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocols.
|      | >>>
|      | >>>
|      | >>>
|      | >>>
|      | >>>
|      | >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time
|      of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
|      tools.ietf.org.
|      | >>>
|      | >>> The IETF Secretariat
|      | >>>
|      | >>>
|      | >>>
|      | >>> _______________________________________________
|      | >>> OSPF mailing list
|      | >>> OSPF@ietf.org
|      | >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
|      | >>
|      | >> _______________________________________________
|      | >> OSPF mailing list
|      | >> OSPF@ietf.org
|      | >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
|      | >>
|      | >>
|      | >
|      | >
|      |
|      |
|      |
| 
|