Re: [OSPF] Feedback regarding draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig

Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com> Sun, 25 January 2015 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.lindem@gmail.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 D37421A1BB0 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:23:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 wpDeiON4V082 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:23:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22b.google.com (mail-qa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCBEE1A1BD2 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id v10so2780747qac.2 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:23:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:subject:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to:date:cc:reply-to :message-id:references:to; bh=a9y/cxHBxwCrDZ5lW9la5wRqNGQIVKSLiKQpS73NHpU=; b=m9bKJaPwJPAYkNVYO8mPctMxyy5veCCIZmHLtbRv4T/IOZsN8eFHUYyc9A560DxEHo g5lN5FbK02vOSyIHqVZxfeVEPsVgEZlxi9+JlO2xB75GYuUyicSuCAkJF/v5Ek2uYv/W JPc3QdgHYt20ln4al2q2KE/eIiiXNJS+EL53WXrOfMQDybxdtdjhrw9P+kvD5iRHuAqQ KgxOcs+tYE9Atx0O2QDsGoTa/S7S7gyBBSdol32R5G2ULlRfIhYHGIag1K9P7TJcbcFk gdBRBJXh3ImN5c8wAbnTIcRwwX+6C4KdmqI5g8p1cPu4PVRJlqPC1MDalii4eakLdwmr f0Zg==
X-Received: by 10.140.32.166 with SMTP id h35mr26767204qgh.22.1422145428032; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:23:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (cpe-065-190-006-125.nc.res.rr.com. [65.190.6.125]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y17sm2030921qaq.14.2015.01.24.16.23.47 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:23:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Acee Lindem <acee@lindem.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5BA24CA7-EFFD-40E9-AB30-3B69B0BBDF73"
In-Reply-To: <CAMC5OMJMNCPXDyfLmUx6f-20uxkcVzrez=v7g_CMJ9fTPa-ynQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 19:23:46 -0500
Message-Id: <E3926D27-ABDA-4519-81C4-29505630BD7B@lindem.com>
References: <CAMC5OMJMNCPXDyfLmUx6f-20uxkcVzrez=v7g_CMJ9fTPa-ynQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rama Darbha <rama.h.darbha@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/w1-h-o4uEOgcB4Bt7K3gg1cbHto>
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Feedback regarding draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Acee Lindem <acee@lindem.com>
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: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 00:23:51 -0000

Hi Rama,

> On Jan 23, 2015, at 10:51 PM, Rama Darbha <rama.h.darbha@gmail.com <mailto:rama.h.darbha@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> A. Lindem and J. Arkko,
> 
> Some feedback on this draft. In section 5:
> 
> "5.  OSPFv3 Router ID Selection
> A pseudo-random number SHOULD be used for the OSPFv3 Router ID."
> 
> I think it would be valuable to describe why a pseudo-random number should be chosen. The [OSPFv3] document doesn't make any reference to selecting a pseudo-random number, so it would be good to justify the reasoning. Something along the lines of:
> "The router id in OSPFv3 is a 32-bit value [OSPFv3]. As outlined in [OSPFv3], a router running OSPFv3 may not have an IPv4 address to automatically select as the router id. Since auto-configuration cannot guarantee a unique router id as outlined in [OSPFv3], a pseudo-random router id is the solution for OSPFv3 autoconfiguration to prevent router id collision.”

Since the whole draft is about autoconfiguration, I would think this is obvious that the router would not have an IPv4 address. We also state:

   An OSPFv3 router requires a unique Router ID within the OSPFv3
   routing domain for correct protocol operation.  An OSPFv3 router
   implementing this specification will select a router-id that has a
   high probability of uniqueness.

If I did add something, it would be:

   Existing Router ID selection algorithms (section C.1 in [OSPFV2] and 
   [OSPFV3]) are not viable since they are dependent on a unique IPv4  
   interface address which is not likely to be available in auto configured 
   deployments.

> 
> 
> 
> Also, there's a small formatting error. Section 7.2 and 7.4 are not marked correctly as headers.

This really isn’t a formatting error. The problem is that heading is too long to fit on one line. I think I will shorten the headings to fit on a single line to avoid confusion. 



> 
> 
> Regards,
> Rama
> 
> -- 
> -----
> Rama Darbha
> rama.h.darbha@gmail.com <mailto:rama.h.darbha@gmail.com>
> 919 410 7262
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org <mailto:OSPF@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf