Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-ymbk-lsvr-lsoe-00

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Mon, 26 March 2018 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38883127010; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 hOaS82mLLaSv; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x242.google.com (mail-it0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 069F5126E64; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x242.google.com with SMTP id m134-v6so4029693itb.3; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0/KNnaosK220YIj1sfznOAdoOmIFit+SYgbv2ytmlOo=; b=kga1mraJqYejjviuAZ5WliNG6Z+Bz+XJH9Jkq/LCTxHA03yqZbq/ts/hQuwDcKLZ7y 12tGFX3LlWhn2P6QyFt6GSknR/VKE+GUFcTlszcN7ixRa/qizCP8aKLCII5V8QHyKjO8 QO29Nkng0y56aRv3MPYr4Wk4KpskPg5nVEmf010JcrfoLCUXXPFb1pOEaHUvrLbZOkX3 1joVykEbowXl8CMg1W1ELuvAy/yFRnjRVk4pTW8bWvfRU3dCi6IsSm2meFoimeG3OTt8 YSqPYhLzgnr4lyMb+F8cYH1o6m8Wq2A6ErLOE4/Avzt2OEJg+BIKSr/O+5JvCg8s53Ey igHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0/KNnaosK220YIj1sfznOAdoOmIFit+SYgbv2ytmlOo=; b=ousQNmIPPe6opZy8B3b0WuX5q8NooAKYGq6tooiiHLQTASPBtbcX7iqBT4NrJPzsrJ jumcJjNvzzBeZCVLApztIkZdDtuqLWYVmeWnXFUQl923vxJupAMkXNdptDUYIQY6Mjf7 ZtvEC4E2aTxaxbf6NvMJyp1IoaM08akqBoO0rrE47x+JaFOZB04JDdYBLyAn67uClIaD 14Nwlre8FwisgYKUNI8CPXKz7r5aBOJsZ16nKfcAkisyiYlw1DPOEEWqdWNKbv4MS2kC rM3hJPA9A/WDvl2M9gEkHqkn3BcQrl+n50zspshsAn0WgwkiE89ygmBclivFcIs8UufI KThA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EXWR7JXQLDSmrcZVQRAeJVuCQzkQAxzadxqILhKdm3sfHnjxhD hh8lx+CjmJLnDkA/3C5zBnaBr4aMEH3EqLjt56SnNuNY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/DusuR1OzYdTBQEgLrMz/otKlK9xmtpoh+LEAV4DxXI4+YNLCH5pe/mmcqvHBizDUHdMwlYoiVyFRcdX/epKs=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:c88:: with SMTP id 130-v6mr5735530itn.14.1522030171159; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.58.193 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 19:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERm0K=sz==JqkwUsWPE3KsC4_MHu8TsO-BnXDkHfJ0G2FQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180323075937.GX30215@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CA+b+ERm0K=sz==JqkwUsWPE3KsC4_MHu8TsO-BnXDkHfJ0G2FQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 22:09:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEFutvXxVVpp+=Gmue6DTk0JHT74OvjGQs5Vy_aps7ANsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-ymbk-lsvr-lsoe-00
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, lsr@ietf.org
Cc: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/2cHga3prRDMnun5y_ErHdUoU4rM>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:09:33 -0000

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; wrote:
> Dear Authors,
>
> Let me just ask one little question ....
>
> It seems that ISIS protocol already meets a "Link State Over Ethernet"
> definition so why to invent anything new here ?

My thought also.

> If you don't like flooding properties of ISIS just disable it. Do not flood.
> Do not run SPF in ISIS.. Use ISIS only for p2p discovery.

IS-IS now explicitly supports link-scoped "flooding" as per RFC 7356
"IS-IS Flooding Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)". It also support 16-bit
TLV lengths. See in particular Extended Level 1 Circuit Scope (E-L1CS)
in RFC 7356.

> You get for free out of the box all what you are trying to describe in the
> subject document. Integrating open source ISIS code just for discovery (ie.
> not worring about optimizations of flooding, back-off, timers, spf etc ...)
> will be IMO much faster even using any apache license existing
> implementation of ISIS.

And authentication (RFC 5310).

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> Last - as Toerless already indicated - solving inevitable inconsistencies of
> running LSOE, CDP & LLDP between various devices or in parallel on the same
> links is something that should be addressed from day one. Unless you assume
> that if someone is to use LSVR is will also have LSOE and any other
> alternative discovery mechanisms will be disabled.
>
> Best,
> RR.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>