comments on IPFRR drafts
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Wed, 03 May 2006 08:29 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FbCjM-00030S-Ey; Wed, 03 May 2006 04:29:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FbCjL-0002xi-1Z for rtgwg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 04:29:07 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FbCN6-0002v4-B7 for rtgwg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 04:06:08 -0400
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FbC73-0001z8-Sa for rtgwg@ietf.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 03:49:39 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k437nU32031917 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2006 10:49:30 +0300
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 10:49:30 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: rtgwg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605031048530.31885@netcore.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1436/Tue May 2 20:41:37 2006 on otso.netcore.fi
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_RELAYS autolearn=failed version=3.1.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on otso.netcore.fi
X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Subject: comments on IPFRR drafts
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: rtgwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org
I draft-ietf-ipfrr-spec-framework-05.txt, but I don't have anything to comment except that maybe [MICROLOOP] reference should be draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis-01.txt instead of draft-bryant-shand-lf-conv-frmwk-02.txt. I also read draft-ietf-ipfrr-spec-base-05. It looked rather good, but there seemed to be some omissions that should probably be addressed. substantial ----------- ==> this document only mentions IS-IS and OSPF(v2). Is it directly applicable without any mods to OSPFv3 as well? If so, refer to it as well; if not, describe the differences. I'm assuming IPv6 for IS-IS should work without any issues as well. Further than that, it seems that additional words are possibly needed about multi-topology IS-IS (and maybe the multi-topology OSPF)? I'm assuming the regular OSPF/IS-IS TE extensions work without problems? This specification defines a form of SRLG protection limited to those SRLGs that include a link that the calculating router is directly connected to. Information about local link SRLG membership is manually configured. Information about remote link SRLG membership is dynamically obtained using [RFC4205] or [RFC4203]. ==> the last sentence seems a bit assumptive. Is it assumed that to be able to use _IP_FRR with SRLG, you'll need to deploy GMPLS and TE extensions for your IGP? Maybe more leeway is needed here (e.g., the above references are just examples of remote SRLG information sources). Btw, is it feasible to use RFC4205 or RFC4203 on non-GPMLS, non-IGP-TE networks in any case? Are there alternatives? 7. Security Considerations The mechanism described in this document does not modify any routing protocol messages, and hence no new threats related to packet modifications or replay attacks are introduced. Traffic to certain destinations can be temporarily routed via next-hop routers that would not be used with the same topology change if this mechanism wasn't employed. However, these next-hop routers can be used anyway when a different topological change occurs, and hence this can't be viewed as a new security threat. ==> Do the LDP usage case requirements set down by this spec cause security considerations (they certainly cause propagation of information throughout the domain)? Maybe this needs a brief mention here, and possibly appropriate pointers if these modes have been adequately described in an LDP spec. editorial --------- P_i.alt_next_hops = {} P_i.alt_type = NONE P_i.alt_link-protect = FALSE P_i.alt_node-protect = FALSE ==> the middle line should probably be split to two lines.. It is possible to provide ASBR protection if BGP selected selected a set of IGP next-hops and allowed the IGP to determine the primary and ==> remove one "selected". -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Rtgwg mailing list Rtgwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
- comments on IPFRR drafts Pekka Savola
- Re: comments on IPFRR drafts Alex Zinin
- Re: comments on IPFRR drafts Pekka Savola
- Re: comments on IPFRR drafts Alia Atlas
- Re: comments on IPFRR drafts mike shand
- Re: comments on IPFRR drafts Stewart Bryant