From nobody Mon Mar 2 18:14:10 2015 Return-Path: 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 19A9C1A90A3 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:14:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 UGho-nPiATHt for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C1251A90A4 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPU82589; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:14:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 02:14:03 +0000 Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.115]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:13:58 +0800 From: Xuxiaohu To: "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHQUy+JmFU2XvZG+k6+6xM2/hn35Z0KCK0Q Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 02:13:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0830F2C1@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.55] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:14:08 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpBbnkgY29tbWVudHMgYXJlIHdlbGNvbWUuDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNClhp YW9odQ0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IGludGVybmV0LWRy YWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10NCj4gU2VudDog U2F0dXJkYXksIEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDI4LCAyMDE1IDQ6MjEgUE0NCj4gVG86IFVtYSBDaHVuZHVyaTsg THVpcyBNLiBDb250cmVyYXM7IFJvYmVydCBSYXN6dWs7IFh1eGlhb2h1OyBMdWlzIE0uDQo+IENv bnRyZXJhczsgWHV4aWFvaHU7IFVtYSBDaHVuZHVyaTsgUm9iZXJ0IFJhc3p1aw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0 OiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0LXh1LW9zcGYtZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlv bi1jYXAtMDAudHh0DQo+IA0KPiANCj4gQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LXh1LW9z cGYtZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlvbi1jYXAtMDAudHh0DQo+IGhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJt aXR0ZWQgYnkgWGlhb2h1IFh1IGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCj4g DQo+IE5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC14dS1vc3BmLWVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpb24tY2FwDQo+IFJldmlzaW9uOgkw MA0KPiBUaXRsZToJCUFkdmVydGlzaW5nIEVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpb24gQ2FwYWJpbGl0eSBVc2luZyBP U1BGDQo+IERvY3VtZW50IGRhdGU6CTIwMTUtMDItMjgNCj4gR3JvdXA6CQlJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1 Ym1pc3Npb24NCj4gUGFnZXM6CQk1DQo+IFVSTDoNCj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRl cm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQteHUtb3NwZi1lbmNhcHN1bGF0aW9uLWNhcC0wMC50eHQNCj4gU3Rh dHVzOg0KPiBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC14dS1vc3BmLWVu Y2Fwc3VsYXRpb24tY2FwLw0KPiBIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3Jn L2h0bWwvZHJhZnQteHUtb3NwZi1lbmNhcHN1bGF0aW9uLWNhcC0wMA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEFic3Ry YWN0Og0KPiAgICBJbiBhIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgbmV0d29yayBlbnZpcm9ubWVudCB3aGVyZSBNUExT LVNQUklORy1lbmFibGVkIHJvdXRlcnMNCj4gICAgYXJlIHBhcnRpYWxseSBkZXBsb3llZCwgaXQg bmVlZHMgdG8gdHJhbnNwb3J0IE1QTFMgdHJhZmZpYyB0aHJvdWdoIGFuDQo+ICAgIElQLWJhc2Vk IHR1bm5lbCBiZXR3ZWVuIHR3byBNUExTLVNQUklORy1lbmFibGVkIHJvdXRlcnMgc28gYXMgdG8N Cj4gICAgdHJhdmVyc2Ugbm9uLU1QTFMgcm91dGVycy4gIFRoZSBpbmdyZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBJUC1i YXNlZCB0dW5uZWwgbXVzdA0KPiAgICBrbm93IHdoaWNoIGVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpb24gdHlwZSBpcyBz dXBwb3J0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIGVncmVzcyBvZiB0aGF0IElQLQ0KPiAgICBiYXNlZCB0dW5uZWwuVGhp cyBkb2N1bWVudCBkZXNjcmliZXMgaG93IHRvIGFkdmVydGlzZSB0aGUNCj4gICAgZW5jYXBzdWxh dGlvbiBjYXBhYmlsaXR5IG9mIE1QTFMtU1BSSU5HLWVuYWJsZWQgcm91dGVycyB1c2luZyBPU1BG Lg0KPiAgICBOb3RlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBlbmNhcHN1bGF0aW9uIGNhcGFibGl0eSBhZHZlcnRpc21l bnQgbWF5IGJlIGFwcGxpY2FsYmUNCj4gICAgdG8gb3RoZXIgdXNlIGNhc2VzIGFzIHdlbGwuDQo+ IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBQbGVhc2Ugbm90ZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSB0YWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9m IG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBzdWJtaXNzaW9uDQo+IHVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXpl ZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQo+IA0K PiBUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From nobody Mon Mar 2 22:57:48 2015 Return-Path: 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 4EE481A038A for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:57:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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 nJeUbaZ0kip1 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8165E1A0381 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.43.66.140] (194.163.249.24) by linfreserv.linfre (Axigen) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 3E9FD9; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:57:36 +0100 Message-ID: <54F55B5F.3050109@linfre.de> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:57:35 +0100 From: Karsten Thomann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xuxiaohu , "ospf@ietf.org" References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0830F2C1@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0830F2C1@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records DomainKey-Status: no signature X-AxigenSpam-Level: 4 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:57:46 -0000 Hi, some comments: last sentence of section 1: capablity -> capability applicalbe -> applicable Section 3: The Encapsulation Capability TLV could not appear more than once wihin a given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . Would like to change it to SHOULD NOT or better MUST NOT instead of could not and at the end of the sentence is a space which should be removed. Encapsualtion -> Encapsulation Cability -> Capability vairalbe-> variable Section 4: .. -> . at the end of the sentence Regards Karsten Am 03.03.2015 um 03:13 schrieb Xuxiaohu: > Hi all, > > Any comments are welcome. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] >> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 4:21 PM >> To: Uma Chunduri; Luis M. Contreras; Robert Raszuk; Xuxiaohu; Luis M. >> Contreras; Xuxiaohu; Uma Chunduri; Robert Raszuk >> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap >> Revision: 00 >> Title: Advertising Encapsulation Capability Using OSPF >> Document date: 2015-02-28 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 5 >> URL: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap/ >> Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00 >> >> >> Abstract: >> In a particular network environment where MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers >> are partially deployed, it needs to transport MPLS traffic through an >> IP-based tunnel between two MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers so as to >> traverse non-MPLS routers. The ingress of the IP-based tunnel must >> know which encapsulation type is supported by the egress of that IP- >> based tunnel.This document describes how to advertise the >> encapsulation capability of MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers using OSPF. >> Note that this encapsulation capablity advertisment may be applicalbe >> to other use cases as well. >> >> >> >> >> 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 From nobody Tue Mar 3 00:08:20 2015 Return-Path: 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 CA3561A1A57 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 00:08:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 XSVvsi3SAuIC for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 00:08:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06DB81A1A2F for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 00:08:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPV08450; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 08:08:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 08:08:14 +0000 Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.115]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:08:09 +0800 From: Xuxiaohu To: Karsten Thomann , "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHQUy+JmFU2XvZG+k6+6xM2/hn35Z0KCK0Q///Jf4CAAJmIgA== Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 08:08:09 +0000 Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0830F34E@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0830F2C1@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <54F55B5F.3050109@linfre.de> In-Reply-To: <54F55B5F.3050109@linfre.de> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.55] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 08:08:19 -0000 Hi Karsten, Thanks a lot for your comments. I will update them in the next version. Best regards, Xiaohu > -----Original Message----- > From: Karsten Thomann [mailto:karsten_thomann@linfre.de] > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:58 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; ospf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt >=20 > Hi, >=20 > some comments: > last sentence of section 1: > capablity -> capability > applicalbe -> applicable > Section 3: > The Encapsulation Capability TLV could not appear more than once wihin a = given > OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . > Would like to change it to SHOULD NOT or better MUST NOT instead of could= not > and at the end of the sentence is a space which should be removed. >=20 > Encapsualtion -> Encapsulation > Cability -> Capability > vairalbe-> variable >=20 > Section 4: > .. -> . at the end of the sentence >=20 > Regards > Karsten >=20 >=20 > Am 03.03.2015 um 03:13 schrieb Xuxiaohu: > > Hi all, > > > > Any comments are welcome. > > > > Best regards, > > Xiaohu > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > >> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 4:21 PM > >> To: Uma Chunduri; Luis M. Contreras; Robert Raszuk; Xuxiaohu; Luis M. > >> Contreras; Xuxiaohu; Uma Chunduri; Robert Raszuk > >> Subject: New Version Notification for > >> draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt > >> > >> > >> A new version of I-D, draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00.txt > >> has been successfully submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF > repository. > >> > >> Name: draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap > >> Revision: 00 > >> Title: Advertising Encapsulation Capability Using OSPF > >> Document date: 2015-02-28 > >> Group: Individual Submission > >> Pages: 5 > >> URL: > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-0 > >> 0.txt > >> Status: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap/ > >> Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-encapsulation-cap-00 > >> > >> > >> Abstract: > >> In a particular network environment where MPLS-SPRING-enabled > routers > >> are partially deployed, it needs to transport MPLS traffic through= an > >> IP-based tunnel between two MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers so as to > >> traverse non-MPLS routers. The ingress of the IP-based tunnel mus= t > >> know which encapsulation type is supported by the egress of that I= P- > >> based tunnel.This document describes how to advertise the > >> encapsulation capability of MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers using OSPF= . > >> Note that this encapsulation capablity advertisment may be applica= lbe > >> to other use cases as well. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 From nobody Tue Mar 3 13:57:30 2015 Return-Path: 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 AF3021ACDB2; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:57:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 bUvuKJrsk5iq; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:57:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1139A1ACDAE; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:57:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 0DB14180208; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:56:28 -0800 (PST) To: eugenkim@amazon.com, jmoy@casc.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20150303215628.0DB14180208@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:56:28 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: ospf@ietf.org, akatlas@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC2328 (4257) X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:57:25 -0000 The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC2328, "OSPF Version 2". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2328&eid=4257 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Eugene M. Kim Date Reported: 2015-02-04 Held by: Alia Atlas (IESG) Section: 2.1.1 Original Text ------------- In NBMA mode, OSPF emulates operation over a broadcast network: a Designated Router is elected for the NBMA network, and the Designated Router originates an LSA for the network. The graph representation for broadcast networks and NBMA networks is identical. This representation is pictured in the middle of Figure 1a. Corrected Text -------------- In NBMA mode, OSPF emulates operation over a broadcast network: a Designated Router is elected for the NBMA network, and the Designated Router originates an LSA for the network. The graph representation for broadcast networks and NBMA networks is identical. This representation is pictured in the bottom of Figure 1a. Notes ----- The bottom, not middle, of Figure 1a depicts the identical graph representation of broadcast and NBMA networks. -------------------------------------- RFC2328 (no draft string recorded) -------------------------------------- Title : OSPF Version 2 Publication Date : April 1998 Author(s) : J. Moy Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Tue Mar 3 14:19:06 2015 Return-Path: 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 21B841ACE08; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:19:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 5ScDLddcVGJ1; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4102A1ACDFE; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:19:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2063; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1425421143; x=1426630743; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=NPFuIoWIaSf4T4CVXv4JO67EA8oaHdJwXau/fclB/rs=; b=G+ODFcPxMrQ/UB9/5Fn4kYqU2247q5pCkgU4M06Ul9G5nBHZ1edV6Nem kjRGuKAYJ3eEr/ETTMrnbIV3LTXn9VWm61ofoZ/RJAXythQoIdbcYAHyh zDeR8PpbeXcCHl4MmeCOPSfPC7yaqgl9U6MJx59D53fQEQkIiE2lfGzj3 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CxBQCuMvZU/4gNJK1AGoMCUloEwTsKhXACgSlNAQEBAQEBfIQQAQEEAQEBNzQLEAIBCDYQJwslAgQBDQWILw031XYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXixKBPYMxB4QrBYVwigmJSYEai3CGVSOCAg0PgVBvARGBMn8BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,684,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="128608323" Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2015 22:19:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t23MJ1KH019450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 22:19:01 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:19:01 -0600 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: RFC Errata System , "eugenkim@amazon.com" Thread-Topic: [OSPF] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC2328 (4257) Thread-Index: AQHQVf0O8XuWcOQxEUOGpAX+bRgI0p0LZOCA Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 22:19:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150303215628.0DB14180208@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20150303215628.0DB14180208@rfc-editor.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7D4AF4C8EF2016438F589706E810D5BC@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" , "akatlas@juniper.net" , "iesg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC2328 (4257) X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:19:04 -0000 Hi Alia,=20 As you recall, I recommended verification of this errata. Thanks, Acee On 3/3/15, 4:56 PM, "RFC Errata System" wrote: >The following errata report has been held for document update >for RFC2328, "OSPF Version 2". > >-------------------------------------- >You may review the report below and at: >http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D2328&eid=3D4257 > >-------------------------------------- >Status: Held for Document Update >Type: Editorial > >Reported by: Eugene M. Kim >Date Reported: 2015-02-04 >Held by: Alia Atlas (IESG) > >Section: 2.1.1 > >Original Text >------------- >In NBMA mode, OSPF emulates operation over a broadcast >network: a Designated Router is elected for the NBMA >network, and the Designated Router originates an LSA for the >network. The graph representation for broadcast networks and >NBMA networks is identical. This representation is pictured >in the middle of Figure 1a. > >Corrected Text >-------------- >In NBMA mode, OSPF emulates operation over a broadcast >network: a Designated Router is elected for the NBMA >network, and the Designated Router originates an LSA for the >network. The graph representation for broadcast networks and >NBMA networks is identical. This representation is pictured >in the bottom of Figure 1a. > >Notes >----- >The bottom, not middle, of Figure 1a depicts the identical graph >representation of broadcast and NBMA networks. > >-------------------------------------- >RFC2328 (no draft string recorded) >-------------------------------------- >Title : OSPF Version 2 >Publication Date : April 1998 >Author(s) : J. Moy >Category : INTERNET STANDARD >Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP >Area : Routing >Stream : IETF >Verifying Party : IESG > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >OSPF@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From nobody Tue Mar 3 17:52:46 2015 Return-Path: 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 BC0AE1A8A99; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:52:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 p3rLLEpBe_Aq; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B0A1A8A98; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id F070F180205; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:51:47 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20150304015147.F070F180205@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:51:47 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] RFC 7471 on OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 01:52:38 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7471 Title: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions Author: S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, A. Atlas, S. Previdi Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: March 2015 Mailbox: spencer.giacalone@gmail.com, dward@cisco.com, jdrake@juniper.net, akatlas@juniper.net, sprevidi@cisco.com Pages: 19 Characters: 38803 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-11.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471 In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network performance information (e.g., link propagation delay) is becoming critical to data path selection. This document describes common extensions to RFC 3630 "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2" and RFC 5329 "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3" to enable network performance information to be distributed in a scalable fashion. The information distributed using OSPF TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make path selection decisions based on network performance. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms by which network performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring network performance information or using that information, once distributed, are outside the scope of this document. This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Tue Mar 3 18:11:36 2015 Return-Path: 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 D7D861A88BC; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:11:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 X7VaL43JyFsI; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFD661A88B0; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:11:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3407; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1425435092; x=1426644692; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=G066PElY6zDx7v7eqxeGzaCIIkbW0AdGEVL4Wl0BB34=; b=OMHcH4TthqT9XC5XtrpTSHl0WX3j3R5SVIDQFEgK20i1S+ByMzSUlVpt iLXYVaezhwncHFSD5PPGYsNrO8gBgpjQ+/d3hhH3Yi8VK184lIskhTS0W thU3VfC7yCpGn+6QOF7K4XgSEQsyS9HMMcGdLbljOQbzTR7XkZ2SryLJd s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ANBQBIafZU/5NdJa1agwJSXsE8CoVwAoEoTQEBAQEBAXyEEAEBBAEBATcUIAsQAgEIFBASECEGCgElAgQBDQUUBwIEh3oDEQ3RNQ2FHgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEixKBPYEHgVIFUwIFhCsFj3mDYIQhgUiBGoMiiRiGDCOCD4FfbwGBAQkXIn8BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,685,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="400736352" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2015 02:11:31 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t242BUKh020258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:11:30 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 20:11:30 -0600 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" , "ietf-announce@ietf.org" , "rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org" Thread-Topic: [OSPF] RFC 7471 on OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions Thread-Index: AQHQVh4J0HBxCXa/B0yeGbc9aLskWp0LpZMA Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:11:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150304015147.F070F180205@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20150304015147.F070F180205@rfc-editor.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7D21DDC6323CBC4CA86B03D76605BDC2@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "drafts-update-ref@iana.org" , "ospf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OSPF] RFC 7471 on OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:11:35 -0000 Thanks to the authors for persistence is publishing this RFC. I believe these TE extensions were first presented at IETF 80 in Prague under the moniker of OSPF TE Express Path. Acee=20 On 3/3/15, 8:51 PM, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" wrote: >A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > =20 > RFC 7471 > > Title: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric > Extensions > Author: S. Giacalone, D. Ward, > J. Drake, A. Atlas, > S. Previdi > Status: Standards Track > Stream: IETF > Date: March 2015 > Mailbox: spencer.giacalone@gmail.com, > dward@cisco.com, > jdrake@juniper.net, > akatlas@juniper.net, > sprevidi@cisco.com > Pages: 19 > Characters: 38803 > Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-11.txt > > URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471 > >In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial >information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network >performance information (e.g., link propagation delay) is becoming >critical to data path selection. > >This document describes common extensions to RFC 3630 "Traffic >Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2" and RFC 5329 "Traffic >Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3" to enable network >performance information to be distributed in a scalable fashion. The >information distributed using OSPF TE Metric Extensions can then be >used to make path selection decisions based on network performance. > >Note that this document only covers the mechanisms by which network >performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring >network performance information or using that information, once >distributed, are outside the scope of this document. > >This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working >Group of the IETF. > >This is now a Proposed Standard. > >STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track >protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and >suggestions >for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official >Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for >the=20 >standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this >memo is unlimited. > >This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > >For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html > >Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless >specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >unlimited distribution. > > >The RFC Editor Team >Association Management Solutions, LLC > > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >OSPF@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From nobody Fri Mar 6 01:29:33 2015 Return-Path: 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 727741ACD3A for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 01:29:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 FRr8bx31pq6A for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 01:29:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E931ACD36 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 01:29:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPY44213; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:29:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:29:27 +0000 Received: from NKGEML509-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.71]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:01 +0800 From: Youjianjie To: "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHQV+61wl0Gcojb7k24jJwIcopylJ0PLvuA Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 09:29:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150306091930.7344.78248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150306091930.7344.78248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.173] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9y?= =?utf-8?q?_draft-liang-ospf-flowspec-extensions-03=2Etxt?= X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:29:31 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpXZSd2ZSBtZXJnZWQgdGhlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlY2VpdmVkIGZyb20gdGhlIG1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdCBhbmQgbGFzdCBJRVRGIG1lZXRpbmcuDQpZb3VyIHF1ZXN0aW9ucyBhbmQgY29t bWVudHMgYXJlIGFwcHJlY2lhdGVkLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KSmlhbmppZQ0KDQotLS0tLemCruS7 tuWOn+S7ti0tLS0tDQrlj5Hku7bkuro6IGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRv OmludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gDQrlj5HpgIHml7bpl7Q6IDIwMTXlubQz5pyINuaX pSAxNzoyMA0K5pS25Lu25Lq6OiBXdW5hbiAoRXJpYyk7IFFpYW5kZW5nIExpYW5nOyBZb3VqaWFu amllOyBRaWFuZGVuZyBMaWFuZzsgWW91amlhbmppZTsgV3VuYW4gKEVyaWMpDQrkuLvpopg6IE5l dyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQtbGlhbmctb3NwZi1mbG93c3BlYy1leHRl bnNpb25zLTAzLnR4dA0KDQoNCkEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC1saWFuZy1vc3Bm LWZsb3dzcGVjLWV4dGVuc2lvbnMtMDMudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0 dGVkIGJ5IEppYW5qaWUgWW91IGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCg0K TmFtZToJCWRyYWZ0LWxpYW5nLW9zcGYtZmxvd3NwZWMtZXh0ZW5zaW9ucw0KUmV2aXNpb246CTAz DQpUaXRsZToJCU9TUEYgRXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBmb3IgRmxvdyBTcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uDQpEb2N1bWVu dCBkYXRlOgkyMDE1LTAzLTA2DQpHcm91cDoJCUluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KUGFnZXM6 CQkxMw0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRz L2RyYWZ0LWxpYW5nLW9zcGYtZmxvd3NwZWMtZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy0wMy50eHQNClN0YXR1czogICAg ICAgICBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1saWFuZy1vc3BmLWZs b3dzcGVjLWV4dGVuc2lvbnMvDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3Jn L2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtbGlhbmctb3NwZi1mbG93c3BlYy1leHRlbnNpb25zLTAzDQpEaWZmOiAgICAg ICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZmP3VybDI9ZHJhZnQtbGlhbmctb3NwZi1m bG93c3BlYy1leHRlbnNpb25zLTAzDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBkaXNj dXNzZXMgdGhlIHVzZSBjYXNlcyB3aHkgT1NQRiAoT3BlbiBTaG9ydGVzdCBQYXRoDQogICBGaXJz dCkgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW5nIGZsb3cgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiAoRmxvd1NwZWMpIHJvdXRlcyBpcw0K ICAgbmVjZXNzYXJ5LiAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBhbHNvIGRlZmluZXMgYSBuZXcgT1NQRiBGbG93 U3BlYyBPcGFxdWUNCiAgIExpbmsgU3RhdGUgQWR2ZXJ0aXNlbWVudCAoTFNBKSBlbmNvZGluZyBm b3JtYXQgdGhhdCBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCB0bw0KICAgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSBGbG93U3BlYyByb3V0ZXMu DQoNCiAgIEZvciB0aGUgbmV0d29yayBvbmx5IGRlcGxveWluZyBJR1AgKEludGVyaW9yIEdhdGV3 YXkgUHJvdG9jb2wpIChlLmcuDQogICBPU1BGKSwgaXQgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdG8gZXh0ZW5kIElH UCB0byBkaXN0cmlidXRlIEZsb3dTcGVjIHJvdXRlcy4NCiAgIE9uZSBhZHZhbnRhZ2UgaXMgdG8g bWl0aWdhdGUgdGhlIGltcGFjdHMgb2YgRGVuaWFsLW9mLVNlcnZpY2UgKERvUykNCiAgIGF0dGFj a3MuDQoNCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIA0KDQoNClBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQg aXQgbWF5IHRha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHN1Ym1pc3Np b24gdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNpb24gYW5kIGRpZmYgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K From nobody Wed Mar 11 13:41:39 2015 Return-Path: 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 923B01A8713 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:41:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 glO8qpmkKEMh for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 143D81A8712 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:41:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1176; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1426106497; x=1427316097; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=isLNi+jDGodDh3vi98wDK+mg+6R19PeQLKA+N0iEGPo=; b=IlppykZiZzcXOUh9m8HkL3XntvYpoElai2frpC6LUUcSkBIZwJXR65o9 Jq3PiW5UWespHyfO18yhgbsHPZ3HufQEHueZNGDIyIMdwlEzyXhciKJam 3dPuNDdu7bfND88qLtTBft6VAuOcNpcpirZSAzIwievgbSj2HIfQWm+Hs k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D6CABJpwBV/5ldJa1cgwZSWgSDB7pjhX+FcB6BIEwBAQEBAQF9hBYdBhFFEgEiAiYCBDAVEgQOiDQNrgybJgEBAQEGAQEBAR6BIYh3hXCCb4FFBZAciV2TeSOCMoE8bwGBQ38BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,383,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="131122375" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2015 20:41:36 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2BKfa0N018882 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:41:36 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.200]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:41:36 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: OSPF WG Last Call for Reloaded Thread-Index: AQHQXDvEjh+3WT5ao0+IQEKXDx1tlA== Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:41:35 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Sam Hartman , Manav Bhatia , =?utf-8?B?IuW8oOWkp+aIkCjmt6HkuYUpIg==?= , OSPF ADs Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Reloaded X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 20:41:38 -0000 V2UgaGF2ZSBoYWQgc3Vic3RhbnRpdmUgY2hhbmdlcyB0byBzZWN0aW9uIDQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBm aW5hbCBkb2N1bWVudA0KcmV2aWV3IHBlcmlvZC4gVGhlc2UgY2hhbmdlcyBhcmUgdG8gYmV0dGVy IGFsaWduIHdpdGggUkZDIDcyMTAgYW5kIHRoZQ0KYmVzdCBwcmFjdGljZXMgaW4gUkZDIDcyMTEu IFRoZXJlIGlzIGFsc28gYSBjb3JyZWN0aW9uIGluIHRoZSBsYXN0DQpwYXJhZ3JhcGggb2Ygc2Vj dGlvbiA1LiBIZW5jZSwgd2UgYXJlIGdvaW5nIHRvIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCB0aGUgZmluYWwNCmRv Y3VtZW50IChub3cgUkZDIDc0NzQpLg0KDQpUaGUgZmluYWwgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgbG9jYXRlZCBo ZXJlOg0KDQogaHR0cDovL3d3dy5yZmMtZWRpdG9yLm9yZy9hdXRob3JzL3JmYzc0NzQudHh0DQog aHR0cDovL3d3dy5yZmMtZWRpdG9yLm9yZy9hdXRob3JzL3JmYzc0NzQtZGlmZi5odG1sDQoNClRo aXMgZGlmZiBmaWxlIHNob3dzIGNoYW5nZXMgc2luY2UgdGhlIGxhc3QgcG9zdGVkIHZlcnNpb246 DQogIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmZjLWVkaXRvci5vcmcvYXV0aG9ycy9yZmM3NDc0LWxhc3RkaWZmLmh0 bWwNCg0KVGhpcyByZmNkaWZmIGZpbGUgc2hvd3Mgc2lkZS1ieS1zaWRlIGNoYW5nZXMgc2luY2Ug dGhlIGxhc3QgcG9zdGVkIHZlcnNpb246DQogIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmZjLWVkaXRvci5vcmcvYXV0 aG9ycy9yZmM3NDc0LXJmY2RpZmYuaHRtbA0KDQpUaGUgV0cgZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsIG9uIHRo aXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgYmVnaW5zIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGFuZCB3aWxsIGVuZCBhdA0KMTI6MDAgQU0g UERUIG9uIE1hcmNoIDI2dGgsIDIwMTUuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCkFiaGF5IGFuZCBBY2VlIA0KDQoN Cg== From nobody Wed Mar 11 14:15:25 2015 Return-Path: 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 E6BB41A878A; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:15:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 2kiRyHWVF52H; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527C81A8748; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20150311211521.13496.18623.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:15:21 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: [OSPF] Last Call: (Security Extension for OSPFv2 when using Manual Key Management) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:15:23 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG (ospf): 'Security Extension for OSPFv2 when using Manual Key Management' as Proposed Standard However, the document has had substantive changes to section 4 during the final document review period. These changes are to better align with RFC 7210 and the best practices in RFC 7211. There is also a correction in the last paragraph of section 5. Hence, we are going to WG last call the final document (now RFC 7474) as well as have a simultaneous IETF Last Call on these specific changes. The final document is located here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7474.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7474-diff.html This diff file shows changes since the last posted version: http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7474-lastdiff.html This rfcdiff file shows side-by-side changes since the last posted version: http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7474-rfcdiff.html The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-03-25. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The current OSPFv2 cryptographic authentication mechanism as defined in RFC 2328 and RFC 5709 is vulnerable to both inter-session and intra-session replay attacks when using manual keying. Additionally, the existing cryptographic authentication mechanism does not cover the IP header. This omission can be exploited to carry out various types of attacks. This document defines changes to the authentication sequence number mechanism that will protect OSPFv2 from both inter-session and intra- session replay attacks when using manual keys for securing OSPFv2 protocol packets. Additionally, we also describe some changes in the cryptographic hash computation that will eliminate attacks resulting from OSPFv2 not protecting the IP header. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Fri Mar 20 16:20:25 2015 Return-Path: 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 EF9821A9087 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:20:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 kKt8xrUiOEKM for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59BD71A9056 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:20:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1301; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1426893623; x=1428103223; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=GlvTW66Zk4rw7dVB5gCB4kfO8HSG35q1WHRmD/aq0yw=; b=BKO4zW6keRaCbt5zTxh2Uhwjp5KkGoU3U6Qeg9QueaQ7IdmbNAy5RJ4G W9J7dPKrLF4RLiw004DwpY75zO4td1PS6cix+Rtu1kXzvtduBPXBs6jvi 8RkXuam5lqX09eb5P6lP2/CbJluGLZuTd32xMugmIxNXJ3wRohNQ/moff E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AIBQAHqgxV/5BdJa1cgkBDgTDMWIErTAEBAQEBAX2ECxB5EgELAXQnBA6INMw0AQEBAQEBBAEBAQEBAQEBGpAWhDQFjkGCDoltlCkig26CM38BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,439,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="133993628" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2015 23:20:22 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2KNKKwD001216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:20:20 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.38]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:20:20 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Link Overload references Thread-Index: AQHQY2RuYu89ZN83XEGs0c61moAeVw== Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:20:19 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.255.115] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D132F6629BC18aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" Subject: [OSPF] Link Overload references X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 23:20:23 -0000 --_000_D132F6629BC18aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! Just a quick note to say that the reference to rfc3137 should be updated to= point to rfc6987. Also, in rfc6987 we defined the new architectural value of MaxLinkMetric, w= hich should be used instead of MAX-METRIC. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D132F6629BC18aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <10AD37246A5937478527172022A4BDFC@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

Just a quick note to say that the reference to rfc3137 should be updat= ed to point to rfc6987.

Also, in rfc6987 we defined the new architectural value of MaxLinkMetr= ic, which should be used instead of MAX-METRIC.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_D132F6629BC18aretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Fri Mar 20 17:51:47 2015 Return-Path: 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 95B851A0367 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:51:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 duacbquoREPD for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0775.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:775]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90D3D1A026E for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CY1PR0501MB1385.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.148.139) by CY1PR0501MB1387.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.148.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.112.19; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:51:24 +0000 Received: from CY1PR0501MB1385.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.148.139]) by CY1PR0501MB1385.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.148.139]) with mapi id 15.01.0118.021; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:51:23 +0000 From: Shraddha Hegde To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Link Overload references Thread-Index: AQHQY2RuYu89ZN83XEGs0c61moAeV50mGRfQ Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:51:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.12] authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1387; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(41574002)(377454003)(92566002)(66066001)(86362001)(50986999)(2950100001)(2900100001)(54356999)(122556002)(76176999)(99286002)(2501003)(74316001)(19300405004)(106116001)(76576001)(77156002)(62966003)(2656002)(46102003)(87936001)(33656002)(102836002)(15975445007)(16236675004)(19625215002)(19580395003)(19580405001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1387; H:CY1PR0501MB1385.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1387; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1387; x-forefront-prvs: 05220145DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY1PR0501MB13853900F2E26D27A00449DDD50F0CY1PR0501MB1385_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Mar 2015 00:51:23.4786 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0501MB1387 Archived-At: Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OSPF] Link Overload references X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 00:51:46 -0000 --_000_CY1PR0501MB13853900F2E26D27A00449DDD50F0CY1PR0501MB1385_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Alvaro. Will take care of these. Rgds Shraddha From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 4:50 AM To: draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload@tools.ietf.org Cc: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Link Overload references Hi! Just a quick note to say that the reference to rfc3137 should be updated to= point to rfc6987. Also, in rfc6987 we defined the new architectural value of MaxLinkMetric, w= hich should be used instead of MAX-METRIC. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_CY1PR0501MB13853900F2E26D27A00449DDD50F0CY1PR0501MB1385_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Alvaro. Will take care of thes= e.

 

Rgds

Shraddha

 

From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailt= o:aretana@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 4:50 AM
To: draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Link Overload references

 

Hi!

 

Just a quick note to say that the refer= ence to rfc3137 should be updated to point to rfc6987.

 

Also, in rfc6987 we defined the new arc= hitectural value of MaxLinkMetric, which should be used instead of MAX-METR= IC.

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_CY1PR0501MB13853900F2E26D27A00449DDD50F0CY1PR0501MB1385_-- From nobody Mon Mar 23 22:41:10 2015 Return-Path: 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 DA08E1B2C8C for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:41:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 r8A0suyUEumx for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC4131A0270 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 22:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BQQ13793; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:41:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:41:01 +0000 Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.168]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:40:52 +0800 From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" To: "akatlas@juniper.net" , "shraddha@juniper.net" , "cbowers@juniper.net" , "cbowers@juniper.net" , "jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com" , Lizhenbin , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees] Thread-Index: AdBl9RNVIjdh2omqRZeaKtGEV4Uubw== Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:40:51 +0000 Message-ID: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB2C9A0@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.152.169] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB2C9A0nkgeml512mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees] X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 05:41:09 -0000 --_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB2C9A0nkgeml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Authors, Please update http link to version 4: [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- routing-extensions-03 (work in progress), December 2014. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-04 Below http links are not available, Could you please update these. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture] Atlas, A., Kebler, R., Bowers, C., Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Tantsura, J., Konstantynowicz, M., and R. White, "An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-04 (work in progress), July 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-04 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm] Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A. Gopalan, "Algorithms for computing Maximally Redundant Trees for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr- algorithm-01 (work in progress), July 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-01 Thanks & Regards Anil S N "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Po= stel --_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB2C9A0nkgeml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Authors,

 

Please update http link to version 4:<= /b>

 

[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
   =
;           Psenak, P., P=
revidi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
   =
;           Shakir, R., H=
enderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
   =
;           Extensions fo=
r Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-=

   =
;           ro=
uting-extensions-03 (work in progress), December 2014.

 

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-os= pf-segment-routing-extensions-04

 

 

Below http links are not available, Could you ple= ase update these.

        &nbs= p;       

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture]
   =
;           Atlas, A., Ke=
bler, R., Bowers, C., Enyedi, G., Csaszar,
   =
;           A., Tantsura,=
 J., Konstantynowicz, M., and R. White, "An
   =
;           Architecture =
for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally
   =
;           Redundant Tre=
es", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-04

      &nb= sp;       (work in progress), July 2014.=

 

http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-archite= cture-04

 

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm]

   =
;           Enyedi, G., C=
saszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A.


   =
;           Gopalan, &quo=
t;Algorithms for computing Maximally Redundant


   =
;           Trees for IP/=
LDP Fast-Reroute", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-


     &nbs=
p;        
algorithm-01 (work in progress), July 2014.


 


http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-=
01


 


 


 


Thanks & Regards


Anil S N


 


“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservati=
ve in what you send” - Jon Postel


 


 
--_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB2C9A0nkgeml512mbxchi_-- From nobody Tue Mar 24 09:27:04 2015 Return-Path: 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 D98401A88A9 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:27:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 oKKTJCYvRmPN for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D48A81A1A75 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:27:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17487; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427214421; x=1428424021; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Awbg2clhf7XyFqbBa1R4HRI96FJsDiJqD5EnCmW62RA=; b=TmbOS3lmLxAs5QdJBV1BzeXgMbPlxRqlevwOONXqcH+VZbKyYY8B46i8 XcQJS6jRJFH2ruyr/WHrhKq6A0TjFUCi/8RNDsfcJ1k73NyrTFprW4a66 nSgePDqxWFW8qDIvQsfomUMe/0216RTeXqfOokHaMQI9uxFjQ+YzF0A7o 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A6BQDTjxFV/4MNJK1cgkNDUloEgw7BQYIBhXMCHIEfTAEBAQEBAX2EFAECBCMKXgEIEQECAQIoAwIEMBQDBgoEARKILw2vAJoXAQEBAQEFAQEBAQEBARuLIYRlDQqCaYFFBYZNigODb4YAgRs6gnaIbIZ1IoIygTxvgUR/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,459,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="134977007" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2015 16:27:00 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2OGQx89006592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:27:00 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.200]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:26:59 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" , "akatlas@juniper.net" , "shraddha@juniper.net" , "cbowers@juniper.net" , "jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com" , Lizhenbin , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees] Thread-Index: AQHQZk9aeURmCDcC+ECT8p9jKljotg== Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:26:59 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.167.21] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D136F9FF13454aceeciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees] X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:27:03 -0000 --_000_D136F9FF13454aceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgQW5pbCwNClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgcG9pbnQgdGhlc2Ugb3V0LiBJ4oCZbSBzdXJlIHRoZSBhdXRo b3JzIHdpbGwgdGFrZSBjYXJlIG9mIHRoZXNlIGluIHRoZSBuZXh0IHJldmlzaW9uLiBUaGUgaWRu aXRzIGNoZWNrcyB3aWxsIGZsYWcgdGhlc2UgZG93bmdyYWRlZCByZWZlcmVuY2VzIHdpdGggd2Fy bmluZ3MuDQpUaGFua3MsDQpBY2VlDQoNCkZyb206ICJBbmlsIEt1bWFyIFMgTiAoVlJQIE5ldHdv cmsgQkwpIiA8YW5pbC5zbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tPG1haWx0bzphbmlsLnNuQGh1YXdlaS5jb20+Pg0K RGF0ZTogVHVlc2RheSwgTWFyY2ggMjQsIDIwMTUgYXQgMTI6NDAgQU0NClRvOiAiYWthdGxhc0Bq dW5pcGVyLm5ldDxtYWlsdG86YWthdGxhc0BqdW5pcGVyLm5ldD4iIDxha2F0bGFzQGp1bmlwZXIu bmV0PG1haWx0bzpha2F0bGFzQGp1bmlwZXIubmV0Pj4sICJzaHJhZGRoYUBqdW5pcGVyLm5ldDxt YWlsdG86c2hyYWRkaGFAanVuaXBlci5uZXQ+IiA8c2hyYWRkaGFAanVuaXBlci5uZXQ8bWFpbHRv OnNocmFkZGhhQGp1bmlwZXIubmV0Pj4sIENocmlzIEJvd2VycyA8Y2Jvd2Vyc0BqdW5pcGVyLm5l dDxtYWlsdG86Y2Jvd2Vyc0BqdW5pcGVyLm5ldD4+LCBDaHJpcyBCb3dlcnMgPGNib3dlcnNAanVu aXBlci5uZXQ8bWFpbHRvOmNib3dlcnNAanVuaXBlci5uZXQ+PiwgSmVmZiBUYW50c3VyYSA8amVm Zi50YW50c3VyYUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb208bWFpbHRvOmplZmYudGFudHN1cmFAZXJpY3Nzb24uY29t Pj4sIExpemhlbmJpbiA8bGl6aGVuYmluQGh1YXdlaS5jb208bWFpbHRvOmxpemhlbmJpbkBodWF3 ZWkuY29tPj4sIE9TUEYgV0cgTGlzdCA8b3NwZkBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86b3NwZkBpZXRmLm9y Zz4+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbT1NQRl0gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1vc3BmLW1ydC0wMCBbT1NQRiBFeHRlbnNp b25zIHRvIFN1cHBvcnQgTWF4aW1hbGx5IFJlZHVuZGFudCBUcmVlc10NCg0KSGkgQXV0aG9ycywN Cg0KUGxlYXNlIHVwZGF0ZSBodHRwIGxpbmsgdG8gdmVyc2lvbiA0Og0KDQoNCltJLUQuaWV0Zi1v c3BmLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGluZy1leHRlbnNpb25zXQ0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIFBzZW5haywg UC4sIFByZXZpZGksIFMuLCBGaWxzZmlscywgQy4sIEdyZWRsZXIsIEguLA0KDQogICAgICAgICAg ICAgIFNoYWtpciwgUi4sIEhlbmRlcmlja3gsIFcuLCBhbmQgSi4gVGFudHN1cmEsICJPU1BGDQoN CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBmb3IgU2VnbWVudCBSb3V0aW5nIiwgZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1vc3BmLXNlZ21lbnQtPGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLW9z cGYtc2VnbWVudC1yb3V0aW5nLWV4dGVuc2lvbnMtMDM+DQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgcm91dGlu Zy1leHRlbnNpb25zLTAzPGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLW9z cGYtc2VnbWVudC1yb3V0aW5nLWV4dGVuc2lvbnMtMDM+ICh3b3JrIGluIHByb2dyZXNzKSwgRGVj ZW1iZXIgMjAxNC4NCg0KDQpodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1v c3BmLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGluZy1leHRlbnNpb25zLTA0DQoNCg0KQmVsb3cgaHR0cCBsaW5rcyBh cmUgbm90IGF2YWlsYWJsZSwgQ291bGQgeW91IHBsZWFzZSB1cGRhdGUgdGhlc2UuDQoNCg0KICAg W0ktRC5pZXRmLXJ0Z3dnLW1ydC1mcnItYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlXQ0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIEF0 bGFzLCBBLiwgS2VibGVyLCBSLiwgQm93ZXJzLCBDLiwgRW55ZWRpLCBHLiwgQ3Nhc3phciwNCg0K ICAgICAgICAgICAgICBBLiwgVGFudHN1cmEsIEouLCBLb25zdGFudHlub3dpY3osIE0uLCBhbmQg Ui4gV2hpdGUsICJBbg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIEFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBmb3IgSVAvTERQIEZh c3QtUmVyb3V0ZSBVc2luZyBNYXhpbWFsbHkNCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICBSZWR1bmRhbnQgVHJl ZXMiLCBkcmFmdC1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJyLWFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZS0wNDxodHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmll dGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtcnRnd2ctbXJ0LWZyci1hcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUtMDQ+DQogICAgICAg ICAgICAgICh3b3JrIGluIHByb2dyZXNzKSwgSnVseSAyMDE0Lg0KDQpodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvcGRmL2RyYWZ0LXJ0Z3dnLW1ydC1mcnItYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlLTA0DQoNCg0KICAgW0kt RC5pZXRmLXJ0Z3dnLW1ydC1mcnItYWxnb3JpdGhtXQ0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIEVueWVkaSwg Ry4sIENzYXN6YXIsIEEuLCBBdGxhcywgQS4sIEJvd2VycywgQy4sIGFuZCBBLg0KDQogICAgICAg ICAgICAgIEdvcGFsYW4sICJBbGdvcml0aG1zIGZvciBjb21wdXRpbmcgTWF4aW1hbGx5IFJlZHVu ZGFudA0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgIFRyZWVzIGZvciBJUC9MRFAgRmFzdC1SZXJvdXRlIiwgZHJh ZnQtcnRnd2ctbXJ0LWZyci08aHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXJ0Z3dn LW1ydC1mcnItYWxnb3JpdGhtLTAxPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICBhbGdvcml0aG0tMDE8aHR0cHM6 Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXJ0Z3dnLW1ydC1mcnItYWxnb3JpdGhtLTAxPiAo d29yayBpbiBwcm9ncmVzcyksIEp1bHkgMjAxNC4NCg0KaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL3Bk Zi9kcmFmdC1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJyLWFsZ29yaXRobS0wMQ0KDQoNCg0KVGhhbmtzICYgUmVnYXJk cw0KQW5pbCBTIE4NCg0K4oCcQmUgbGliZXJhbCBpbiB3aGF0IHlvdSBhY2NlcHQsIGFuZCBjb25z ZXJ2YXRpdmUgaW4gd2hhdCB5b3Ugc2VuZOKAnSAtIEpvbiBQb3N0ZWwNCg0KDQo= --_000_D136F9FF13454aceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsgY29sb3I6IHJnYigwLCAwLCAwKTsgZm9udC1zaXplOiAx NHB4OyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogQ2FsaWJyaSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsiPg0KPGRpdj5IaSBBbmlsLDwv ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5UaGFua3MgZm9yIHBvaW50IHRoZXNlIG91dC4gSeKAmW0gc3VyZSB0aGUgYXV0 aG9ycyB3aWxsIHRha2UgY2FyZSBvZiB0aGVzZSBpbiB0aGUgbmV4dCByZXZpc2lvbi4gVGhlIGlk bml0cyBjaGVja3Mgd2lsbCBmbGFnIHRoZXNlIGRvd25ncmFkZWQgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyB3aXRoIHdh cm5pbmdzLjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5UaGFua3MsPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PkFjZWUmbmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8c3BhbiBpZD0iT0xLX1NSQ19CT0RZX1NFQ1RJT04iPg0KPGRp diBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsgZm9udC1zaXplOjExcHQ7IHRleHQtYWxpZ246 bGVmdDsgY29sb3I6YmxhY2s7IEJPUkRFUi1CT1RUT006IG1lZGl1bSBub25lOyBCT1JERVItTEVG VDogbWVkaXVtIG5vbmU7IFBBRERJTkctQk9UVE9NOiAwaW47IFBBRERJTkctTEVGVDogMGluOyBQ QURESU5HLVJJR0hUOiAwaW47IEJPUkRFUi1UT1A6ICNiNWM0ZGYgMXB0IHNvbGlkOyBCT1JERVIt UklHSFQ6IG1lZGl1bSBub25lOyBQQURESU5HLVRPUDogM3B0Ij4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250 LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5Gcm9tOiA8L3NwYW4+JnF1b3Q7QW5pbCBLdW1hciBTIE4gKFZSUCBOZXR3 b3JrIEJMKSZxdW90OyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmFuaWwuc25AaHVhd2VpLmNvbSI+YW5p bC5zbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tPC9hPiZndDs8YnI+DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6Ym9s ZCI+RGF0ZTogPC9zcGFuPlR1ZXNkYXksIE1hcmNoIDI0LCAyMDE1IGF0IDEyOjQwIEFNPGJyPg0K PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPlRvOiA8L3NwYW4+JnF1b3Q7PGEgaHJlZj0i bWFpbHRvOmFrYXRsYXNAanVuaXBlci5uZXQiPmFrYXRsYXNAanVuaXBlci5uZXQ8L2E+JnF1b3Q7 ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86YWthdGxhc0BqdW5pcGVyLm5ldCI+YWthdGxhc0BqdW5pcGVy Lm5ldDwvYT4mZ3Q7LCAmcXVvdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86c2hyYWRkaGFAanVuaXBlci5uZXQi PnNocmFkZGhhQGp1bmlwZXIubmV0PC9hPiZxdW90OyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOnNocmFk ZGhhQGp1bmlwZXIubmV0Ij5zaHJhZGRoYUBqdW5pcGVyLm5ldDwvYT4mZ3Q7LA0KIENocmlzIEJv d2VycyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmNib3dlcnNAanVuaXBlci5uZXQiPmNib3dlcnNAanVu aXBlci5uZXQ8L2E+Jmd0OywgQ2hyaXMgQm93ZXJzICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86Y2Jvd2Vy c0BqdW5pcGVyLm5ldCI+Y2Jvd2Vyc0BqdW5pcGVyLm5ldDwvYT4mZ3Q7LCBKZWZmIFRhbnRzdXJh ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86amVmZi50YW50c3VyYUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20iPmplZmYudGFu dHN1cmFAZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPC9hPiZndDssIExpemhlbmJpbg0KICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWls dG86bGl6aGVuYmluQGh1YXdlaS5jb20iPmxpemhlbmJpbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tPC9hPiZndDssIE9T UEYgV0cgTGlzdCAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOm9zcGZAaWV0Zi5vcmciPm9zcGZAaWV0Zi5v cmc8L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5TdWJqZWN0OiA8 L3NwYW4+W09TUEZdIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3NwZi1tcnQtMDAgW09TUEYgRXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB0byBT dXBwb3J0IE1heGltYWxseSBSZWR1bmRhbnQgVHJlZXNdPGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgaWQ9Ik1BQ19PVVRMT09LX0FUVFJJQlVUSU9OX0JMT0NLUVVP VEUiIHN0eWxlPSJCT1JERVItTEVGVDogI2I1YzRkZiA1IHNvbGlkOyBQQURESU5HOjAgMCAwIDU7 IE1BUkdJTjowIDAgMCA1OyI+DQo8ZGl2IHhtbG5zOnY9InVybjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1j b206dm1sIiB4bWxuczpvPSJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTpvZmZpY2Ui IHhtbG5zOnc9InVybjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOndvcmQiIHhtbG5zOm09 Imh0dHA6Ly9zY2hlbWFzLm1pY3Jvc29mdC5jb20vb2ZmaWNlLzIwMDQvMTIvb21tbCIgeG1sbnM9 Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnL1RSL1JFQy1odG1sNDAiPg0KPG1ldGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9y IiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCAxMiAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+ PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpT aW1TdW47DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxIDYgMCAzIDEgMSAxIDEgMTt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIE1hdGgiOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgNCA1IDMgNSA0IDYgMyAyIDQ7 fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJpOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTUgNSAy IDIgMiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6U2ltU3VuOw0KCXBhbm9z ZS0xOjIgMSA2IDAgMyAxIDEgMSAxIDE7fQ0KLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCnAuTXNv Tm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBjbTsNCgltYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2Fs aWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNvLXN0 eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGlu ZTt9DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXBy aW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30N CnByZQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLWxpbms6IkhUTUwgUHJl Zm9ybWF0dGVkIENoYXIiOw0KCW1hcmdpbjowY207DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0K CWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNvdXJpZXIgTmV3Ijt9DQpzcGFuLkVt YWlsU3R5bGUxNw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbC1jb21wb3NlOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6d2luZG93dGV4dDt9DQpzcGFuLkhU TUxQcmVmb3JtYXR0ZWRDaGFyDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOiJIVE1MIFByZWZvcm1hdHRlZCBD aGFyIjsNCgltc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLWxpbms6IkhUTUwgUHJl Zm9ybWF0dGVkIjsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ291cmllciBOZXciO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0 DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtz aXplOjYxMi4wcHQgNzkyLjBwdDsNCgltYXJnaW46NzIuMHB0IDkwLjBwdCA3Mi4wcHQgOTAuMHB0 O30NCmRpdi5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48 IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNw aWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHht bD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBk YXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPg0KPGRpdiBsYW5n PSJFTi1VUyIgbGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9InB1cnBsZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2Vj dGlvbjEiPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+SGkgQXV0aG9ycyw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+PGI+UGxlYXNlIHVwZGF0ZSBodHRwIGxpbmsgdG8gdmVyc2lvbiA0OjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9iPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K PHByZSBzdHlsZT0icGFnZS1icmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlzIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiI+Wzxh IG5hbWU9InJlZi1JLUQuaWV0Zi1vc3BmLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGluZy1leHRlbnMiIGlkPSJyZWYt SS1ELmlldGYtb3NwZi1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmctZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyI+SS1ELmlldGYtb3NwZi1z ZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmctZXh0ZW5zaW9uczwvYT5dPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8 cHJlIHN0eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOIj4mbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgUHNlbmFrLCBQLiwgUHJldmlkaSwgUy4sIEZpbHNmaWxzLCBDLiwg R3JlZGxlciwgSC4sPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8cHJlIHN0eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJy ZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsg U2hha2lyLCBSLiwgSGVuZGVyaWNreCwgVy4sIGFuZCBKLiBUYW50c3VyYSwgJnF1b3Q7T1NQRjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPHByZSBzdHlsZT0icGFnZS1icmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3 YXlzIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IEV4dGVuc2lvbnMgZm9y IFNlZ21lbnQgUm91dGluZyZxdW90OywgPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9o dG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3NwZi1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmctZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy0wMyI+ZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1vc3BmLXNlZ21lbnQtPC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPHByZSBzdHls ZT0icGFnZS1icmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlzIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRm LW9zcGYtc2VnbWVudC1yb3V0aW5nLWV4dGVuc2lvbnMtMDMiPnJvdXRpbmctZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy0w MzwvYT4gKHdvcmsgaW4gcHJvZ3Jlc3MpLCBEZWNlbWJlciAyMDE0LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcHJlPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4iPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9y Zy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3NwZi1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmctZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy0wNCI+aHR0 cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3NwZi1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmct ZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy0wNDwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxv OnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286 cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48Yj5CZWxvdyBodHRwIGxpbmtzIGFyZSBub3Qg YXZhaWxhYmxlLCBDb3VsZCB5b3UgcGxlYXNlIHVwZGF0ZSB0aGVzZS48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvYj48 L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsgPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8cHJlIHN0eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMi PjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgWzxhIG5hbWU9InJlZi1JLUQuaWV0Zi1ydGd3 Zy1tcnQtZnJyLWFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSIgaWQ9InJlZi1JLUQuaWV0Zi1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJyLWFy Y2hpdGVjdHVyZSI+SS1ELmlldGYtcnRnd2ctbXJ0LWZyci1hcmNoaXRlY3R1cmU8L2E+XTxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPHByZSBzdHlsZT0icGFnZS1icmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlz Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IEF0bGFzLCBBLiwgS2VibGVy LCBSLiwgQm93ZXJzLCBDLiwgRW55ZWRpLCBHLiwgQ3Nhc3phciw8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3ByZT4NCjxwcmUgc3R5bGU9InBhZ2UtYnJlYWstYmVmb3JlOmFsd2F5cyI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0i RU4iPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyBBLiwgVGFudHN1cmEsIEouLCBLb25zdGFudHlub3dp Y3osIE0uLCBhbmQgUi4gV2hpdGUsICZxdW90O0FuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8 cHJlIHN0eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOIj4mbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgQXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlIGZvciBJUC9MRFAgRmFzdC1SZXJvdXRlIFVz aW5nIE1heGltYWxseTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPHByZSBzdHlsZT0icGFnZS1i cmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlzIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 IFJlZHVuZGFudCBUcmVlcyZxdW90OywgPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9o dG1sL2RyYWZ0LXJ0Z3dnLW1ydC1mcnItYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlLTA0Ij5kcmFmdC1ydGd3Zy1tcnQt ZnJyLWFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZS0wNDwvYT48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3ByZT4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7KHdvcmsg aW4gcHJvZ3Jlc3MpLCBKdWx5IDIwMTQuPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcGRmL2RyYWZ0LXJ0Z3dnLW1ydC1mcnItYXJj aGl0ZWN0dXJlLTA0Ij5odHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcGRmL2RyYWZ0LXJ0Z3dnLW1ydC1m cnItYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlLTA0PC9hPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8cHJlIHN0eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTph bHdheXMiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgWzxhIG5hbWU9InJlZi1JLUQuaWV0 Zi1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJyLWFsZ29yaXRobSIgaWQ9InJlZi1JLUQuaWV0Zi1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJy LWFsZ29yaXRobSI+SS1ELmlldGYtcnRnd2ctbXJ0LWZyci1hbGdvcml0aG08L2E+XTxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJlPg0KPHByZSBzdHlsZT0icGFnZS1icmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlzIj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IEVueWVkaSwgRy4sIENzYXN6YXIs IEEuLCBBdGxhcywgQS4sIEJvd2VycywgQy4sIGFuZCBBLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcHJl Pg0KPHByZSBzdHlsZT0icGFnZS1icmVhay1iZWZvcmU6YWx3YXlzIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiI+ Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IEdvcGFsYW4sICZxdW90O0FsZ29yaXRobXMgZm9yIGNvbXB1 dGluZyBNYXhpbWFsbHkgUmVkdW5kYW50PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8cHJlIHN0 eWxlPSJwYWdlLWJyZWFrLWJlZm9yZTphbHdheXMiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOIj4mbmJzcDsmbmJz cDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgVHJlZXMgZm9yIElQL0xEUCBGYXN0LVJlcm91dGUmcXVvdDssIDxhIGhyZWY9 Imh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJyLWFsZ29yaXRo bS0wMSI+ZHJhZnQtcnRnd2ctbXJ0LWZyci08L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wcmU+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTiI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJy LWFsZ29yaXRobS0wMSI+DQphbGdvcml0aG0tMDE8L2E+ICh3b3JrIGluIHByb2dyZXNzKSwgSnVs eSAyMDE0Ljwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+ Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3Rv b2xzLmlldGYub3JnL3BkZi9kcmFmdC1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJyLWFsZ29yaXRobS0wMSI+aHR0cDov L3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL3BkZi9kcmFmdC1ydGd3Zy1tcnQtZnJyLWFsZ29yaXRobS0wMTwvYT48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9w Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0i TXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPlRo YW5rcyAmYW1wOyBSZWdhcmRzPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj5B bmlsIFMgTjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8 L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj7igJxCZSBsaWJlcmFsIGluIHdoYXQgeW91 IGFjY2VwdCwgYW5kIGNvbnNlcnZhdGl2ZSBpbiB3aGF0IHlvdSBzZW5k4oCdIC0gSm9uIFBvc3Rl bDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48 L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0K PC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCjwvc3Bhbj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4N Cg== --_000_D136F9FF13454aceeciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Mar 26 16:31:17 2015 Return-Path: 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 12E061A1AA9 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:31:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 NnHbbiq-S7x2 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 379F11A1A78 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 16:31:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=248; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427412674; x=1428622274; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=XnVmH/4SwKCMDxRUSXby4sQS+LNQRHsvO0vV1IC/ACk=; b=d72MxQJVJclRABs9zle30TDj5sI0tzGTmNSlo8uCeSUbapr+qS5XUpcS oH6PB3qK/h5XQJ2tS3YH0bxP+raVU4bw6Wnqd2vJrFa/hStZYbiY+I7uA V5x11DFWP0RM/3LiUkCgJistyA5RI0UCjVUz5bIBDtGdKJaMWLihsklZF E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AKBQBSlhRV/4gNJK1cgwZSXoMOwh+GE4EpTAEBAQEBAX2EGyMRVwEiAiYCBDAVEgSIQg2iA49MmjgBAQgBAQEBARkEgSGRboFFBZBQiW+BG4Mwj2Iig26CM38BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,475,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="407029018" Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2015 23:31:13 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2QNVDtn028167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:31:13 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.200]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:31:13 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: OSPF Minutes Available Thread-Index: AQHQaBzyl5M94c/XwU6OAIfRHIiGuw== Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:31:12 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.67.92] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <9B73558F69A26949B559E2FA13330D90@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] OSPF Minutes Available X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:31:16 -0000 UGxlYXNlIHNlZSB0aGUgVVJMIGZvciB0aGUgT1NQRiBXRyBtaW51dGVzLiBUaGFua3MgdG8gTGVz IEdpbnNiZXJnIGZyb20NCkNpc2NvIGZvciB0YWtpbmcgdGhlbS4NCg0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvcHJvY2VlZGluZ3MvOTIvbWludXRlcy9taW51dGVzLTkyLW9zcGYNCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0K QWNlZQ0KDQo= From santanu.kar@ipinfusion.com Fri Mar 27 07:17:17 2015 Return-Path: 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 C22381ACE8D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:17:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 P-3NZceTpKEC for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) (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 1A2631AC43C for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wgra20 with SMTP id a20so100519793wgr.3 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:17:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=EOI8diWxoMmvY3QHYhiES8yJzF9NWpnc3e5kHgyrRq4=; b=XfFUTLV8pJvet9OL5tvWJxh+s10ybZ++AkyJA4teejarMBqz9o6jkuxpuosmbioI0t 1I4+EvbWYabLmLhbG66D6KM7A03M+k08IUti1RzR5WImtL1Vl/M0ShWwGOQqF81Ar7xV 5Mfn3iMj7kYDTffWCgNDnyLGcLwCa86z+GAVckVQ7Ke2aA0Qkyd3NW1Z1z5vLx2KQRwj 2T4XfLQelOoe8lZjM6qwVrAk1POKSG074NbYdfqUdOBuV5qKrtt578GHxDtHW6gZh+Uk 6OYph0PKJj5nSxxK1iZ0eOX5reH3MHINNDkB6kbYeFzLm/qcrzYUJ2ojUzfNUTyLjoif iNEA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7cKh+KSAhWYbtGoJ5IcaOYF26Af1ZKT0W8DadcLguluSymjRd0zRTycQ/1Le3YG8iCMbBrGhAT4HO5SWHw/fxOhWZlj+tKZG7VALD+j8bXQa6vR/Pk1D5mNOe63VhHkmzVSW3qSie8armQ54FGBj3rLdxAH5ldVJ8tsc69gXbJfQceVTCO6ae9590aJpar7CVQ5QT X-Received: by 10.180.74.135 with SMTP id t7mr57314559wiv.72.1427465827831; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 07:17:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Santanu Kar MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AdBol7CoMWZ69oY2QXWAefarTdFnhQ== Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:47:02 +0530 Message-ID: <4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com> To: ospf@ietf.org, ppsenak@cisco.com, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:24:12 -0000 Hi Seeking some more clarification in the draft regarding PHP route determination. Please consider the following scenario. SID refers to Prefix Segment Identifier. Router-A: --------------------- :Router-B: ---------------------( SID-210) :Router-C 10.0.0.0/24 20.0.0.0/24 Lets consider the above topology of 3 routers. Router-C has configured Prefix SID 210 for prefix 20.0.0.0/24 prefix. In the context of Router-A, the route 20.0.0.0/24 is a PHP route, as it belongs to its neighbor Router-B. Router-B is not configured. When Ext Prefix LSA with SID 210 originated by Router-C reaches Router-A , it finds that it's not from its neighbor Router-B and hence it will end up installing a non-PHP label say 210, instead of doing penultimate hop pop for the route 20.0.0.0/24. But this won't be correct. Am interpreting this because as per the following rules for PHP determination prescribed in the document, "If the NP-Flag is not set then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix- SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. This is equivalent to the penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane." Since this is an intra-area case, NP is not set. However since Router-A is not upstream neighbor of Router-C it will not apply PHP for this route, even though its actually a PHP route. Few questions in this 1) Should we just rely on checking that its upstream neighbor and NP flag and then apply PHP, or Router-A should do a special search its Link State database to find whether the route actually belongs to its neighbor, in this case Router-B. 2) Is the above a valid scenario or the administrator is mandated to configure SID values (which are all same) on all routers connected to subnet 20.0.0.0/24. 3) If we mandate (2) we will have the below scenario Router-A --------------------- :Router-B : SID-210--------------------- SID-210:Router-C 10.0.0.0/24 20.0.0.0/24 In this case, even if we configure SID in Router-C earlier, we will be needed to configure the same in Router-B also. So Router-A will select the Ext Prefix LSA coming from Router-B , as its the best path for route 20.0.0.0/24 than Router-C. So even though we have non-PHP label installed first, it will be replaced with PHP label as soon ROuter-B is also configured for same prefix. So we may not choose to do special search in link state database to find PHP route as mentioned in (1) The selection of SID, when both Router-B and Router-C is configured is based on following the rules mentioned in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-03#section-2. 1 "If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the different OSPF routers, the application using the information is required to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is used. For example, the application could prefer the LSA providing the best path to the prefix." So should we follow (2) and (3) for considering PHP, or (1). If we don't follow any, we will end up having non-PHP label even for routes that are PHP. Please point me out if in case I am misinterpreting the intent of any texts mentioned from the drafts. Regards Santanu -- . From nobody Fri Mar 27 08:05:19 2015 Return-Path: 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 0AE471ACF16 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Q8sXkrix65Er for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 8B7191ACEEB for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oifl3 with SMTP id l3so78310247oif.0 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:05:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GA6A/HCx1PxHFMWWj0/jgBETfblFcS6Na74W11/aoLg=; b=FFzOkywrBUccch4PI0mLwwK0gFvddzz8HzKx3Yea75qncX1VpRR/pwDRlyxGsL9Nxo bzftEAxZEbKAW3hyHBplm1FRREjqR5y2hPRkn1pv8nRff0JVCdMTT9mkZNIM6sE4m9rL BCA8SojXM3mhujWZ5OL8G5UyDz8R1fF/tpFtQqBQLKRz7uab33FZk3+yfqfhxKYGUCb7 N7CZ+Kfdsi0ItAdlOOmpo96YSEhxuwNCWcIEzFl0i76FprN6982aeAZ/WRgvfYSzTNuw Ll8M+Z4+El2FdTvMsvVMUH0MWJhE4ZYXb8ldSBTnarZhhIWDp8MqF9B0Mq9Jb5bUgNBZ ZABQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.142.101 with SMTP id rv5mr14628461obb.13.1427468715024; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.44.198 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:05:14 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alia Atlas To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e342afe79205124675dd Archived-At: Cc: OSPF WG List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Minutes Available X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:05:18 -0000 --001a11c2e342afe79205124675dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks for getting the minutes out promptly! Alia On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Please see the URL for the OSPF WG minutes. Thanks to Les Ginsberg from > Cisco for taking them. > > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/minutes/minutes-92-ospf > > Thanks, > Acee > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > --001a11c2e342afe79205124675dd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for getting the minutes out promptly!

Alia

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) = <acee@cisco.com&= gt; wrote:
Please see the URL for = the OSPF WG minutes. Thanks to Les Ginsberg from
Cisco for taking them.

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/minutes/minutes-92-ospf<= /a>

Thanks,
Acee

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

--001a11c2e342afe79205124675dd-- From nobody Sun Mar 29 10:23:43 2015 Return-Path: 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 933DE1A6F28 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:23:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.111 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 sU9TII3Rszxl for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2DF71A6EF4 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:23:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1622; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427649820; x=1428859420; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=jMUVTVE5rf4/oC5nVmQUBXKj7Gc3nqreKbK4MESIFkA=; b=GjmJlryFjeSRIIyxN3Psu12wb5rEADguPxQmnDmq7IbXFMeC+bdlxwnN 07tgei/HqnvOF4nBATKq3ZrNCjfm5680L3aJtd4LHEHqvFRh4vvWCqjFv Cfwir37Gt5lR/SCzMt1ioC9PdAbAuW3AD6JEd23fPvjexowEsm+fzH5Zl 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AcBQDpNBhV/5tdJa1cgwZSUQsEgw/CGAqFcx6BAUwBAQEBAQF9hBUBAQQBAQEaBhE6CxIBCBoCHwcCBCULFRIEAQ0FiC8NsUqYbQEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBAQEagSGJCX+EeIJvgUUFkFyJdJQ1IoIygTxvAYFDfwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,489,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="136416491" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2015 17:23:28 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2THNRm9011759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:23:27 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.200]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:23:27 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Reloaded Thread-Index: AQHQakURvG2AhPhtaUOekYIDzjEWvQ== Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:23:26 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <5DF87F36EB5C4C44AEEE1606A5BB1F98@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Sam Hartman , =?utf-8?B?IuW8oOWkp+aIkCjmt6HkuYUpIg==?= , Manav Bhatia , OSPF ADs Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Reloaded X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:23:42 -0000 VGhlIFdHIGFuZCBJRVRGIExhc3QgQ2FsbHMgaGF2ZSBib3RoIGVuZGVkIG9uIHRoZSBBVVRINDgg Q2hhbmdlcyB0byB0aGlzDQpkcmFmdC4gDQpUaGFua3MsDQpBY2VlIA0KDQpPbiAzLzExLzE1LCA0 OjQxIFBNLCAiQWNlZSBMaW5kZW0gKGFjZWUpIiA8YWNlZUBjaXNjby5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+ V2UgaGF2ZSBoYWQgc3Vic3RhbnRpdmUgY2hhbmdlcyB0byBzZWN0aW9uIDQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBm aW5hbCBkb2N1bWVudA0KPnJldmlldyBwZXJpb2QuIFRoZXNlIGNoYW5nZXMgYXJlIHRvIGJldHRl ciBhbGlnbiB3aXRoIFJGQyA3MjEwIGFuZCB0aGUNCj5iZXN0IHByYWN0aWNlcyBpbiBSRkMgNzIx MS4gVGhlcmUgaXMgYWxzbyBhIGNvcnJlY3Rpb24gaW4gdGhlIGxhc3QNCj5wYXJhZ3JhcGggb2Yg c2VjdGlvbiA1LiBIZW5jZSwgd2UgYXJlIGdvaW5nIHRvIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCB0aGUgZmluYWwN Cj5kb2N1bWVudCAobm93IFJGQyA3NDc0KS4NCj4NCj5UaGUgZmluYWwgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgbG9j YXRlZCBoZXJlOg0KPg0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnJmYy1lZGl0b3Iub3JnL2F1dGhvcnMvcmZjNzQ3 NC50eHQNCj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5yZmMtZWRpdG9yLm9yZy9hdXRob3JzL3JmYzc0NzQtZGlmZi5o dG1sDQo+DQo+VGhpcyBkaWZmIGZpbGUgc2hvd3MgY2hhbmdlcyBzaW5jZSB0aGUgbGFzdCBwb3N0 ZWQgdmVyc2lvbjoNCj4gIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmZjLWVkaXRvci5vcmcvYXV0aG9ycy9yZmM3NDc0 LWxhc3RkaWZmLmh0bWwNCj4NCj5UaGlzIHJmY2RpZmYgZmlsZSBzaG93cyBzaWRlLWJ5LXNpZGUg Y2hhbmdlcyBzaW5jZSB0aGUgbGFzdCBwb3N0ZWQNCj52ZXJzaW9uOg0KPiAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5y ZmMtZWRpdG9yLm9yZy9hdXRob3JzL3JmYzc0NzQtcmZjZGlmZi5odG1sDQo+DQo+VGhlIFdHIGdy b3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBvbiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGJlZ2lucyBpbW1lZGlhdGVseSBhbmQgd2ls bCBlbmQgYXQNCj4xMjowMCBBTSBQRFQgb24gTWFyY2ggMjZ0aCwgMjAxNS4NCj4NCj5UaGFua3Ms DQo+QWJoYXkgYW5kIEFjZWUgDQo+DQo+DQo+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj5PU1BGIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPk9TUEZAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj5o dHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL29zcGYNCg0K From nobody Tue Mar 31 05:25:17 2015 Return-Path: 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 CECE71A92AD; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:25:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 fd_HqYSDrzv9; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6511A9234; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150331122503.29204.21378.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:25:03 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: ospf mailing list , ospf chair , RFC Editor Subject: [OSPF] Protocol Action: 'Security Extension for OSPFv2 when using Manual Key Management' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying-11.txt) X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:25:09 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Security Extension for OSPFv2 when using Manual Key Management' (draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying-11.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alia Atlas and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying/ Technical Summary This document describes a non backward-compatible technique that may be used by OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) implementations to prevent replay attacks even on cryptographically secured messages. The draft increases the sequence number size to 8 bytes and carries it in OSPF packet trailers. Working Group Summary There were some discussions around the technique and some additional issues with existing implementations were found, which increased the applicability of the given solution. Document Quality The document updates RFC2328 and RFC5709. The document has existed for more than 3 years as a WG document and has undergone 9 revisions in the period. Personnel Vishwas Manral is the document shepherd and Alia Atlas is the responsible AD. From nobody Tue Mar 31 06:21:02 2015 Return-Path: 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 9071C1ACD2F for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:21:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 2BBelHvqRI4y for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) (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 2C8E21ACD25 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wgdm6 with SMTP id m6so18940280wgd.2 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=kdkuPZtQPbaRivHUw5CvRwzUv9QP+uJ/daSWo9csx3w=; b=crMphqeuE1jhPWMDD/to5b9ZW5WoKZ/PMpUbCJTHdJz1C0jZDXFvjaC3as7xVWbNEC 5hToG6m/28dhAotSsNe2zymJAqjFUZAQOdAjQv8BADK/tZk+dPWkxOPqOLeQ90FqU90N jgSaXF0NorUfAvNzvktfvD/bhYhJFPX79qtTO5pwPd13fFC6Q2pVl4k86kFU+vxfQasC feIPSDiizJAfGDsQ9hhz5TuJLeU/G4/Z/pRipqzl/YrWzYI6aBA356mzOkJY8deKla+Z VS5V1qAbfZSmNQ9g9zl6PWdk834zDngRSE6zGa8hLWN1TrXHupkZ+MDKchZ2ebu0oFu+ yOxg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3tFRdAXLZhnxZxVBoN03fzm+w9C9VT6tvYxL//VP2HCkO7gbr2YAAPSXi3If3w5JWhXvMbjUOq9WyNf6B0grxvtI2cjClBQdA+83YLy0JTlE0AwUoMt3d5/m73p0AfZBTJU/jds21gJBWODOS8JagLPqaAky+MBEti+Dx08A9c0lTfhZNynVRq7QHqiCP4ZXWaGLD X-Received: by 10.194.133.101 with SMTP id pb5mr75543479wjb.40.1427808056770; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 06:20:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Santanu Kar References: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AdBol7CoMWZ69oY2QXWAefarTdFnhQDB03Jg Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:50:45 +0530 Message-ID: <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> To: ospf@ietf.org, ppsenak@cisco.com, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011771f3081c9605129578e9 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:21:01 -0000 --089e011771f3081c9605129578e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 RE: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 Hi Authors I think last mail was a bit long to have probably missed the actual point which I was trying to make. Stating it concisely again. The PHP Prefix Segment can be advertised by the neighbor as well as by routers downstream of the neighbor which are connected to it. So to determine a PHP Prefix Segment, should the recipient router only check for PHP when its advertised from its neighbor (with NP flag unset) , or even when its from other routers downstream of the neighbor. The reason for this doubt is this statement in the text "If the NP-Flag is not set then any* upstream neighbor* of the Prefix-SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. This is equivalent to the penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane." Regards Santanu -----Original Message----- From: Santanu Kar [mailto:santanu.kar@ipinfusion.com ] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:47 PM To: 'ospf@ietf.org'; 'ppsenak@cisco.com'; 'sprevidi@cisco.com'; ' cfilsfil@cisco.com'; 'hannes@juniper.net'; 'rob.shakir@bt.com'; ' wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com' Subject: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 Hi Seeking some more clarification in the draft regarding PHP route determination. Please consider the following scenario. SID refers to Prefix Segment Identifier. Router-A: --------------------- :Router-B: ---------------------( SID-210) :Router-C 10.0.0.0/24 20.0.0.0/24 Lets consider the above topology of 3 routers. Router-C has configured Prefix SID 210 for prefix 20.0.0.0/24 prefix. In the context of Router-A, the route 20.0.0.0/24 is a PHP route, as it belongs to its neighbor Router-B. Router-B is not configured. When Ext Prefix LSA with SID 210 originated by Router-C reaches Router-A , it finds that it's not from its neighbor Router-B and hence it will end up installing a non-PHP label say 210, instead of doing penultimate hop pop for the route 20.0.0.0/24. But this won't be correct. Am interpreting this because as per the following rules for PHP determination prescribed in the document, "If the NP-Flag is not set then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix- SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. This is equivalent to the penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane." Since this is an intra-area case, NP is not set. However since Router-A is not upstream neighbor of Router-C it will not apply PHP for this route, even though its actually a PHP route. Few questions in this 1) Should we just rely on checking that its upstream neighbor and NP flag and then apply PHP, or Router-A should do a special search its Link State database to find whether the route actually belongs to its neighbor, in this case Router-B. 2) Is the above a valid scenario or the administrator is mandated to configure SID values (which are all same) on all routers connected to subnet 20.0.0.0/24. 3) If we mandate (2) we will have the below scenario Router-A --------------------- :Router-B : SID-210--------------------- SID-210:Router-C 10.0.0.0/24 20.0.0.0/24 In this case, even if we configure SID in Router-C earlier, we will be needed to configure the same in Router-B also. So Router-A will select the Ext Prefix LSA coming from Router-B , as its the best path for route 20.0.0.0/24 than Router-C. So even though we have non-PHP label installed first, it will be replaced with PHP label as soon ROuter-B is also configured for same prefix. So we may not choose to do special search in link state database to find PHP route as mentioned in (1) The selection of SID, when both Router-B and Router-C is configured is based on following the rules mentioned in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-03#section-2.1 "If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the different OSPF routers, the application using the information is required to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is used. For example, the application could prefer the LSA providing the best path to the prefix." So should we follow (2) and (3) for considering PHP, or (1). If we don't follow any, we will end up having non-PHP label even for routes that are PHP. Please point me out if in case I am misinterpreting the intent of any texts mentioned from the drafts. Regards Santanu -- . --089e011771f3081c9605129578e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-exten= sions-03

Hi Authors

I think last mai= l was a bit long to have probably missed the actual point which I was tryin= g to make.=C2=A0 = Stating it concisely again.

The PHP Prefix Segment can be adv= ertised by the neighbor as well as by routers downstream of the neighbor <= font face=3D"Calibri">which are connected to it.<= /font>

So to determine<= /font> a PHP Prefix Segment= , should the recipient router only= check for PHP when its advertised from its neig= hbor (with NP flag unset) , or even when its from other routers downstream of the neighbor.

The reason for this doubt is this= statement in the text

"If the NP-Flag is not set t= hen any upstre= am neighbor o= f the Prefix-SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID.=C2=A0 This is equivale= nt to the<= /span> penultimate hop popping = mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane."

Regards

Santanu

-----Original Me= ssage-----
From: Santanu Kar [mailto:san= tanu.kar@ipinfusion.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:47 PM
To: 'ospf@ietf.org'; 'ppsenak@cisco.com'; 'sprevidi@cisco.com'; 'cfilsfil@cisco.com'; 'hannes@juniper.net'; 'rob.shakir@bt.com'; 'wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com'<= br> Subject: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensi= ons-03

Hi=

Seeking some mor= e clarification in the draft regarding PHP route determination. Please cons= ider the following scenario. SID refers to Prefix Segment Identifier.


=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0

=C2=A0=C2=A0 Rou= ter-A: --------------------- :Router-B: ---------------------( SID-210) :Ro= uter-C

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 10.0.0.0/24=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 20.0.0.0/24

=C2=A0=C2=A0 Let= s consider the above topology of 3 routers. Router-C has configured Prefix = SID 210 for prefix 20.0.0.0/24 prefix. I= n the context of Router-A, the route 20.0.0.= 0/24 is a PHP route, as it belongs to its neighbor Router-B. Router-B i= s not configured.

When Ext Prefix = LSA with SID 210 originated by Router-C reaches Router-A , it finds that it= 's not from its neighbor Router-B and hence it will end up installing a= non-PHP label say 210, instead of doing penultimate hop pop for the route = 20.0.0.0/24. But this won't be corre= ct.

Am interpreting = this because as per the following rules for PHP determination prescribed in= the document, "If the NP-Flag is not set then any upstream neighbor o= f the Prefix-

=C2=A0=C2=A0 SID= originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID.=C2=A0 This is equivalent to the=

=C2=A0=C2=A0 pen= ultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane."

Since this is an= intra-area case, NP is not set. However since Router-A is not upstream nei= ghbor of Router-C it will not apply PHP for this route, even though its act= ually a PHP route. Few questions in this

1) Should we jus= t rely on checking that its upstream neighbor and NP flag and then apply PH= P, or Router-A should do a special search its Link State database to find w= hether the route actually belongs to its neighbor, in this case Router-B.

2) Is the above = a valid scenario or the administrator is mandated to configure SID values (= which are all same) on all routers connected to subnet 20.0.0.0/24.

3) If we mandate= (2) we will have the below scenario

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0

=C2=A0=C2=A0 Rou= ter-A --------------------- :Router-B : SID-210--------------------- SID-21= 0:Router-C

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 10.0.0.0/24=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 20.0.0.0/24

In this case, ev= en if we configure SID in Router-C earlier, we will be needed to configure = the same in Router-B also. So Router-A will select the Ext Prefix LSA comin= g from Router-B , as its the best path for route 20.0.0.0/24 than Router-C. So even though we have non-PHP label in= stalled first, it will be replaced with PHP label as soon ROuter-B is also = configured for same prefix. So we may not choose to do special search in li= nk state database to find PHP route as mentioned in (1)

The selection of= SID, when both Router-B and Router-C is configured is based on following t= he rules mentioned in https://tools.ietf.org/html/d= raft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-03#section-2.1

"If this TL= V is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in

=C2=A0=C2=A0 dif= ferent OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the

=C2=A0=C2=A0 dif= ferent OSPF routers, the application using the information is=

=C2=A0=C2=A0 req= uired to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is=

=C2=A0=C2=A0 use= d.=C2=A0 For example, the application could prefer the LSA providing=

=C2=A0=C2=A0 the= best path to the prefix."

So should we fol= low (2) and (3) for considering PHP, or (1). If we don't follow any, we= will end up having non-PHP label even for routes that are PHP.

Please point me = out if in case I am misinterpreting the intent of any texts mentioned from = the drafts.

Regards

Santanu


. --089e011771f3081c9605129578e9-- From nobody Tue Mar 31 08:13:27 2015 Return-Path: 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 E01AC1ACDF2 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:13:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_82=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 1Q2f9I7r1eaB for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A9E91ACE07 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:13:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5955; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427814802; x=1429024402; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j0d+tr/Q+uCYzA43pv+x6kwCkKSR3R85VAWcDjbqVw4=; b=kRK2jysTZry8wMkM4xmwqiwtuCR40+XifkqMa7LgTm2ZHqBRvYLxwlg6 3X3+zLzckIBlTaHSJFCExrYzIEJg+4OVl01OR8FeYkVP17VUYnjeJpGau tbBBjm+IdvbJpPGtmfhWRCc3Vbg8VE0vRJfzmnttrlsNHjpo+4EwQeten o=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,501,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="428321069" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2015 15:13:21 +0000 Received: from [10.55.51.194] (ams-ppsenak-8711.cisco.com [10.55.51.194]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2VFDKhV005511; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:13:20 GMT Message-ID: <551AB98F.9050008@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:13:19 +0200 From: Peter Psenak User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Santanu Kar , ospf@ietf.org, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com References: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:13:26 -0000 Santanu, On 3/31/15 15:20 , Santanu Kar wrote: > Hi Authors > > I think last mail was a bit long to have probably missed the actual > point which I was trying to make.Stating it concisely again. > > The PHP Prefix Segment can be advertised by the neighbor as well > as by routers downstream of the neighbor which are connected to it. correct, typical case is an area boundary, where ABR propagates the prefix SID between areas. > > So to determine a PHP Prefix Segment, should the recipient router > only check for PHP when its advertised from its neighbor(with NP flag > unset), or even when its from other routers downstream of the neighbor. draft says two things: 1. If the NP-Flag is not set then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix- SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. 2. When calculating the outgoing label for the prefix, the router MUST take into account E and P flags advertised by the next-hop router, if next-hop router advertised the SID for the prefix. This MUST be done regardless of whether the next-hop router contributes to the best path to the prefix. 'E and P flags' should be 'E and NP flags' in the above paragraph, will fix that in the next re-spin. In summary, you should only follow what NP-bit is telling you, if the neighbor advertised the SID. regards, Peter > > The reason for this doubt is this statement in the text > > "If the NP-Flag is not set then any*upstream neighbor*of the Prefix-SID > originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. This is equivalent to > the penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane." > > Regards > > Santanu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Santanu Kar [mailto:santanu.kar@ipinfusion.com] > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:47 PM > To: 'ospf@ietf.org '; 'ppsenak@cisco.com > '; 'sprevidi@cisco.com > '; 'cfilsfil@cisco.com > '; 'hannes@juniper.net > '; 'rob.shakir@bt.com > '; 'wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com > ' > Subject: PHP route determination in > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 > > Hi > > Seeking some more clarification in the draft regarding PHP route > determination. Please consider the following scenario. SID refers to > Prefix Segment Identifier. > > > Router-A: --------------------- :Router-B: ---------------------( > SID-210) :Router-C > > 10.0.0.0/24 20.0.0.0/24 > > Lets consider the above topology of 3 routers. Router-C has > configured Prefix SID 210 for prefix 20.0.0.0/24 > prefix. In the context of Router-A, the route 20.0.0.0/24 > is a PHP route, as it belongs to its neighbor > Router-B. Router-B is not configured. > > When Ext Prefix LSA with SID 210 originated by Router-C reaches Router-A > , it finds that it's not from its neighbor Router-B and hence it will > end up installing a non-PHP label say 210, instead of doing penultimate > hop pop for the route 20.0.0.0/24 . But this won't > be correct. > > Am interpreting this because as per the following rules for PHP > determination prescribed in the document, "If the NP-Flag is not set > then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix- > > SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. This is equivalent to the > > penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane." > > Since this is an intra-area case, NP is not set. However since Router-A > is not upstream neighbor of Router-C it will not apply PHP for this > route, even though its actually a PHP route. Few questions in this > > 1) Should we just rely on checking that its upstream neighbor and NP > flag and then apply PHP, or Router-A should do a special search its Link > State database to find whether the route actually belongs to its > neighbor, in this case Router-B. > > 2) Is the above a valid scenario or the administrator is mandated to > configure SID values (which are all same) on all routers connected to > subnet 20.0.0.0/24 . > > 3) If we mandate (2) we will have the below scenario > > Router-A --------------------- :Router-B : > SID-210--------------------- SID-210:Router-C > > 10.0.0.0/24 20.0.0.0/24 > > In this case, even if we configure SID in Router-C earlier, we will be > needed to configure the same in Router-B also. So Router-A will select > the Ext Prefix LSA coming from Router-B , as its the best path for route > 20.0.0.0/24 than Router-C. So even though we have > non-PHP label installed first, it will be replaced with PHP label as > soon ROuter-B is also configured for same prefix. So we may not choose > to do special search in link state database to find PHP route as > mentioned in (1) > > The selection of SID, when both Router-B and Router-C is configured is > based on following the rules mentioned > inhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-03#section-2.1 > > "If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in > > different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the > > different OSPF routers, the application using the information is > > required to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is > > used. For example, the application could prefer the LSA providing > > the best path to the prefix." > > So should we follow (2) and (3) for considering PHP, or (1). If we don't > follow any, we will end up having non-PHP label even for routes that are > PHP. > > Please point me out if in case I am misinterpreting the intent of any > texts mentioned from the drafts. > > Regards > > Santanu > > > . From nobody Tue Mar 31 10:24:36 2015 Return-Path: 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 D39DB1A1BF3 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:24:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 xG0MDmgaaK3A for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 767991A1C06 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:24:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=464; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427822672; x=1429032272; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=P7G8oluhssoOUQ+aNC/lPYWllvpDEMj7nC15dghM60k=; b=Z1rPPSwdLr0icZXUCAVLD4wicklg8qpHBvRPxAekbjL2XJOswHucP/FN SufWT0arztpV2sBV4/Ok8mA2uJZ+tqp0GpUScTLYbFQagGDZ4uUkxNLFu r/lv3aU6eyOTAbq3gblVPF8iauoNCd26xa5k1w0AgXZqCLPO5TUAQjFqT E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BjBQCz1hpV/5BdJa1cgwZSYYMPwmuGEYEoTAEBAQEBAX2EGx0GEVcBIgIfBwIEMBUSBIhCDaUfj0yZGgEBAQEGAQEBAQEZBIEhkW+BRQWQYoNyhgOBHYMyjCSDSCKCMoE8gjN/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,502,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="137051160" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2015 17:24:31 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2VHOVEk002409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:24:31 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.236]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:24:31 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Thread-Index: AQHQa9eM9iEdb7xkWkeYIy1pibmwfQ== Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:24:30 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:24:35 -0000 Tm93IHRoYXQgdGhlIE1QTFMgV0cgaGFzIGFjY2VwdGVkDQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmll dGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLW1wbHMtc3ByaW5nLWVudHJvcHktbGFiZWwvIGFzDQphIFdH IGRvY3VtZW50LiBXZSBhcmUgcG9sbGluZyBmb3IgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQteHUtb3NwZi1t cGxzLWVsYy0wMSBhcw0KYW4gT1NQRiBXRy4gIFRoZSBwb2xsIHdpbGwgZW5kIG9uIEFwcmlsIDE1 dGgsIDIwMTUgYXQgMTI6MDAgQU0gRURULiBQbGVhc2UNCmluZGljYXRlIHlvdXIgc3VwcG9ydCBv ciBvYmplY3Rpb24gcHJpb3IgdG8gdGhhdCB0aW1lLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQpBY2VlIA0KDQo= From nobody Tue Mar 31 19:48:58 2015 Return-Path: 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 94A101A1BDF for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:48:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 jPil__hE9Azf for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0717.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:717]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23D351A1BCD for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DM2PR0501MB1584.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.133.15) by DM2PR0501MB873.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.173.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.118.21; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 02:48:48 +0000 Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.27) by DM2PR0501MB1584.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.133.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.125.19; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 02:48:47 +0000 Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) by BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) with mapi id 15.01.0118.022; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 02:48:46 +0000 From: Chris Bowers To: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" , Alia Atlas , Shraddha Hegde , "jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com" , Lizhenbin , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees] Thread-Index: AdBl9RNVIjdh2omqRZeaKtGEV4UubwGL36jQ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 02:48:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB2C9A0@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB2C9A0@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.14] authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR0501MB1584; UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR0501MB873; x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(52604005)(377454003)(19617315012)(50986999)(87936001)(2656002)(54356999)(76176999)(122556002)(40100003)(46102003)(19580405001)(86362001)(2900100001)(102836002)(15975445007)(230783001)(2950100001)(77096005)(33656002)(19625215002)(62966003)(77156002)(92566002)(16236675004)(74316001)(2501003)(107886001)(99286002)(1941001)(19300405004)(76576001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR0501MB1584; H:BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5002010)(5005006); SRVR:DM2PR0501MB1584; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR0501MB1584; x-forefront-prvs: 053315510E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BLUPR05MB29285A9AB4C15053CE97C85A9F30BLUPR05MB292namprd_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Apr 2015 02:48:46.6615 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0501MB1584 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees] X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 02:48:56 -0000 --_000_BLUPR05MB29285A9AB4C15053CE97C85A9F30BLUPR05MB292namprd_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Anil, Thanks for pointing this out. I have updated the latest version on github = to reflect this. The changes can be found at: https://github.com/cbowers/draft-ietf-ospf-mrt Note that the reference to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions was c= hanged to draft-ietf-ospf-lsa-extend because the relevant aspect of the osp= f-SR draft was moved to that separate draft. Chris From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL) [mailto:anil.sn@huawei.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 12:41 AM To: Alia Atlas; Shraddha Hegde; Chris Bowers; Chris Bowers; jeff.tantsura@e= ricsson.com; Lizhenbin; OSPF WG List Subject: draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redun= dant Trees] Hi Authors, Please update http link to version 4: [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- routing-extensions-03 (work in progress), December 2014. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-04 Below http links are not available, Could you please update these. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture] Atlas, A., Kebler, R., Bowers, C., Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Tantsura, J., Konstantynowicz, M., and R. White, "An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-04 (work in progress), July 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-04 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm] Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A. Gopalan, "Algorithms for computing Maximally Redundant Trees for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr- algorithm-01 (work in progress), July 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-01 Thanks & Regards Anil S N "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Po= stel --_000_BLUPR05MB29285A9AB4C15053CE97C85A9F30BLUPR05MB292namprd_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Anil,

 

Thanks for pointing th= is out.  I have updated the latest version on github to reflect this.&= nbsp; The changes can be found at:

https://github.com/cbowers/draft-ietf-= ospf-mrt

 

Note that the referenc= e to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions was changed to draft-ietf-o= spf-lsa-extend because the relevant aspect of the ospf-SR draft was moved t= o that separate draft.

 

Chris

 

From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL) [mailto= :anil.sn@huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 12:41 AM
To: Alia Atlas; Shraddha Hegde; Chris Bowers; Chris Bowers; jeff.tan= tsura@ericsson.com; Lizhenbin; OSPF WG List
Subject: draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximall= y Redundant Trees]

 

Hi Authors,

 

Please update http link to version 4:<= /b>

 

[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
   =
;           Psenak, P., P=
revidi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
   =
;           Shakir, R., H=
enderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
   =
;           Extensions fo=
r Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-=

   =
;           ro=
uting-extensions-03 (work in progress), December 2014.

 

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-os= pf-segment-routing-extensions-04

 

 

Below http links are not available, Could you ple= ase update these.

        &nbs= p;       

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture]
   =
;           Atlas, A., Ke=
bler, R., Bowers, C., Enyedi, G., Csaszar,
   =
;           A., Tantsura,=
 J., Konstantynowicz, M., and R. White, "An
   =
;           Architecture =
for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally
   =
;           Redundant Tre=
es", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-04

      &nb= sp;       (work in progress), July 2014.=

 

http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-archite= cture-04

 

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm]

   =
;           Enyedi, G., C=
saszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A.


   =
;           Gopalan, &quo=
t;Algorithms for computing Maximally Redundant


   =
;           Trees for IP/=
LDP Fast-Reroute", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-


     &nbs=
p;        
algorithm-01 (work in progress), July 2014.


 


http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-=
01


 


 


 


Thanks & Regards


Anil S N


 


“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservati=
ve in what you send” - Jon Postel


 


 
--_000_BLUPR05MB29285A9AB4C15053CE97C85A9F30BLUPR05MB292namprd_--