Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Digest, Vol 135, Issue 12

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 16:29:31 -0700

A conditional -1 here ...

I am fine with adoption if I see a version that spells the detailed
behavior and especially interactions between RFC4302 and this draft in a
detailed section, i.e. both on, RFC4302 gets configured/unconfigured, are
the LLS extensions advertised on every hello or just until a specific state
(like ISIS padding thingies) and so on ...

I'd rather have this now than a LC discussion ...

The idea is deceptively simple but it is a redundant mechanism and those
always end causing inter-op problems unless cleanly spelled out ...

--- tony

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:18 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Send OSPF mailing list submissions to
>         [email-masked]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [email-masked]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [email-masked]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of OSPF digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re:  WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
>       Interface ID Advertisement" (Les Ginsberg (ginsberg))
>    2. Re:  WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
>       Interface ID Advertisement" (Robert Raszuk)
>    3. Re:  WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
>       Interface ID Advertisement" (Yingzhen Qu)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>, OSPF WG List <[email-masked]>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 21:07:14 +0000
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
>
> A strong +1  here.
>
>
>
> Acee has captured very well the compelling(sic) reasons for defining these
> extensions.
>
>
>
> Use of RFC 4302 extensions are only a workaround for functionality which
> is missing in the protocol. We need to close that gap.
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* OSPF [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:27 PM
> *To:* OSPF WG List
> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
>
>
>
> Speaking as a WG member:
>
>
>
> I believe we should move forward with this simple mechanism for OSPFv2
> neighbors to learn each other’s interface ID. Both IS-IS and, more
> importantly, OSPFv3 learn the interface ID via their respective hello
> mechanisms. Just because one implementation has repurposed the Generalized
> MPL (GMPL) extensions described in RFC 4302 for interface ID learning is
> not a reason to preclude using the more generally accepted IGP Hello packet
> learning. Additionally, there is the undesirable side effect of TE LSAs
> resulting in inclusion in the TE topology for multiple implementations.
>
>
>
> Finally, when the right technical direction is clear and there is rough
> consensus, the OSPF WG MUST NOT be obstructed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
> *To: *OSPF WG List <[email-masked]>
> *Subject: *WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface
> ID Advertisement"
>
>
>
>
>
> This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment that a
> solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption and we are now
> doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your support or objection by May
> 20th, 2017.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: OSPF List <[email-masked]>
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 17:20:29 -0400
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
> Support.
>
> On May 4, 2017 11:52 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>
>> This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment that a
>> solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption and we are now
>> doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your support or objection by May
>> 20th, 2017.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yingzhen Qu <[email-masked]>
> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>, OSPF WG List <[email-masked]>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 22:18:41 +0000
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
>
> Strong support +1 here.
>
>
>
> The draft provides a generic way for the missing info and it’s needed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yingzhen
>
>
>
> *From:* OSPF [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem
> (acee)
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:27 PM
> *To:* OSPF WG List <[email-masked]>
> *Subject:* Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local
> Interface ID Advertisement"
>
>
>
> Speaking as a WG member:
>
>
>
> I believe we should move forward with this simple mechanism for OSPFv2
> neighbors to learn each other’s interface ID. Both IS-IS and, more
> importantly, OSPFv3 learn the interface ID via their respective hello
> mechanisms. Just because one implementation has repurposed the Generalized
> MPL (GMPL) extensions described in RFC 4302 for interface ID learning is
> not a reason to preclude using the more generally accepted IGP Hello packet
> learning. Additionally, there is the undesirable side effect of TE LSAs
> resulting in inclusion in the TE topology for multiple implementations.
>
>
>
> Finally, when the right technical direction is clear and there is rough
> consensus, the OSPF WG MUST NOT be obstructed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM
> *To: *OSPF WG List <[email-masked]>
> *Subject: *WG Adoption Poll for "OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface
> ID Advertisement"
>
>
>
>
>
> This draft was presented in Chicago and there was acknowledgment that a
> solution was needed. The authors have asked for WG adoption and we are now
> doing a WG adoption poll. Please indicate your support or objection by May
> 20th, 2017.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>

-- 
*We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce
the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know
that is not true.*
—Robert Wilensky