Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:56:01 +0100

Hi,

Just a couple of comments...

===
Section 1
s/proposes the addition of/defines/
===
Section 4
Forgive me for not remembering this discussion...
The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the protocol 
differences."
It then says that the Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included (implying that 
it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored.
1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the LSA"?
2. Is it not possible to consider operating a GMPLS control plane in an IPv6 
network where the routers use IPv6 addresses to communicate (so all control 
plane messages will be addressed using IPv6, and the router address will be 
IPv6 as described in Section 3) but where the data channel identifiers are 
assigned from an IPv4 address space? Recall that in GMPLS the interfaces 
used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange.

Whatever the answers, I think it would help if the reasons were clarified 
beyond "protocol differences."
===

Cheers,
Adrian

PS I wouldn't mind if you spelled my name right in the acks section :-) 

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:50:25 -0400

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for the review.

> s/proposes the addition of/defines/

Changed.

> The draft says that we cannot use the Link ID sub-TLV "due to the  

The link-ID is cannot be used since, in the case of multi-access  
network, it contains the IPv4 address of the Designated Router (DR).  
OSPFv3 doesn't have this information.

> it MAY be included under certain circumstances) but MUST be ignored.

This is the spirit of being conservative in what one sends and  
liberal in what one excepts.

> 1. Does ignored mean "continue to be flooded" or "stripped from the  

In OSPF, only the originator should modify an LSA. So, it means neither.

> used for OSPF exchange are not those used for data exchange.

I believe it is probable that IPv4 and IPv6 will coexist. However,  
OSPFv3 doesn't know the IPv4 address of the DR (at least it is not  
standardized). Hence, this isn't the right sub-TLV to reflect this  
topology.

> beyond "protocol differences."

I'll expand this to describe the multi-access network case. Sound good?

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:51:00 -0400

Adrian,

How's this:

***************
*** 342,348 ****
      The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub-
      TLVs [TE].  All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID  
sub-
      TLV are applicable to OSPFv3.  The Link ID sub-TLV can't be  
used in
!    OSPFv3 due to the protocol differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.

      Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined:

--- 342,351 ----
      The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub-
      TLVs [TE].  All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID  
sub-
      TLV are applicable to OSPFv3.  The Link ID sub-TLV can't be  
used in
!    OSPFv3 since it defined to contain the IPv4 address of the  
Designated
!    Router (DR) for multi-access interfaces.  In contrast to OSPFv2,
!    OSPFv3 always identifies a neighboring router by the Router ID  
(Refer
!    to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]).

      Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined:

***************

I plan to wait until the WG last call has completed to submit the  
update.
Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 07:15:18 -0400

Alan Davey pointed out that I was missing the word "is" in my text. I  
went ahead with a more verbose explanation of the protocol differences.

***************
*** 342,348 ****

--- 342,356 ----
      The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub-
      TLVs [TE].  All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] other than the Link ID  
sub-
      TLV are applicable to OSPFv3.  The Link ID sub-TLV can't be  
used in
!    OSPFv3 since it is defined to use the OSPFv2 identification for the
!    Designated Router (DR) on multi-access networks.  In OSPFv2,
!    neighbors on point-to-point networks and virtual links are  
identified
!    by their Router IDs while neighbors on broadcast, Non-Broadcast
!    Multi-Access (NBMA), and Point-to-Multipoint links are  
identified by
!    their IPv4 interface addresses (Refer to section 8.2 in [OSPFV2]).
!    The IPv4 interface address is not known to OSPFv3.  In contrast to
!    OSPFv2, OSPFv3 always identifies neighboring routers by their  
Router
!    IDs (Refer to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3]).

***************

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:56:08 +0100

Thanks Acee,

That does the job.

Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Acee Lindem" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "CCAMP List" <[email-masked]>; "OSPF List" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for Traffic Engineering Extensions 
toOSPFversion 3 - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-10.txt

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:13:19 -0400

The WG last call has completed and I've posted a new version  
incorporating Adrian's comments. We'll move on to AD review with this  
draft.
Thanks,
Acee
On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:

> We've WG last called this draft in the past and we're going to do  
> it again now. After some deliberations we've made the decision to  
> go forward with this document with the two existing implementations  
> and forgo the request for interoperability testing. The WG last  
> call will be begin today and end April 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM EDT.
> Thanks,
> Acee