Hi Yingzhen, Yes I understand that OSPF-GT is a new protocol leveraging some OSPF elements.
And please do not get me wrong ... way before OSPF Transport Instance I wrote BGP Transport Instance proposal and I do consider such additions to protocols as a very useful thing. In fact honestly recent discussions on UPA/PUA/PULSE could be very well served by OSPF-GT in a stateful fashion. But I just do not see this fits well as a replacement of BGP-LS. Yes, protocol designers like a swiss army knife approach (not to use nail and hammer analogy). However I think custom tools in the toolkit work much better for specific tasks :) Cheers, R. On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 3:20 AM Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Please think of OSPF-GT as a new protocol and it borrows ideas from OSPF. > BGP-LS is one use case. In LSR WG, there have been proposals asking IGPs to > carry non-routing information which will have impacts on protocol > convergence, and OSPF-GT is meant to be the vehicle for such information. > > BMP started before YANG, now with NETCONF/YANG or gNMI, you can retrieve > the entire LSDB or part of it from a router, or subscribe to some data > instances. > > Thanks, > Yingzhen > > On Jul 10, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > My questions were based on section 3.4 of the latest version of the draft. > > So I do not think I misinterpreted it. > > Thank you, > R. > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Robert, >> >> >> >> *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk < >> rob...@raszuk.net> >> *Date: *Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM >> *To: *Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> >> *Cc: *Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>, >> IDR List <i...@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, >> lsr <l...@ietf.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] [Idr] [GROW] IGP Monitoring Protocol >> >> >> >> Hi Yingzhen & OSPF-GT authors, >> >> >> >> UP front I must state that anything is better to export IGP information >> from routers to interested nodes than using BGP for it. >> >> >> >> But to propose using OSPF to transport ISIS seems pretty brave :) I must >> admit it ! >> >> >> >> With that I have few questions to the proposal - assuming the use case is >> to distribute links state info in a *point to point* fashion: >> >> >> >> 1. What is the advantage - if any - to use a new OSPF >> instance/process to send link state data over a unicast session to a >> controller ? >> >> >> >> It doesn’t have to be unicast, the remote neighbor construct just extends >> the possibilities in OSPF-GT. With an OSPF LSDB, the obvious advantage is >> all the protocol machinery is in place. Note that LSDB streaming is just >> but one use case and of OSPF-GT. The detals of this application would be >> specified in a separate draft. >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. The draft is pretty silent on the nature of such a p2p session. >> Please be explicit if this is TCP, QUIC or what ? >> >> >> >> It is OSPF, OSPF has its own protocol identifier (89). This draft just >> extends OSPF. I think you’ve misinterpreted the draft. Hence, your other >> questions aren’t really applicable or would be answered in a draft of the >> OSPF/IS-IS LSDB usage of OSPF-GT. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> C) The draft is pretty silent on types of authentication for such >> sessions. Security considerations are pretty weak in that respect as well. >> >> >> >> The security considerations for OSPF-GT will be similar to those for >> OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. However, since OSPF-GT is not >> used to update OSPF routing, the consequences of attacks will be >> dependent on advertised non-routing information. >> >> >> >> I would actually argue that security considerations of p2p remote >> neighbors are actually quite different from security considerations of >> flooding data. >> >> >> >> Along the same lines security is not about protecting your routing ... it >> is much more about protecting the entire network by exposing critical >> information externally to non authorized parties. >> >> >> >> D) Are there any PUB-SUB options possible for OSPF-GT ? >> >> >> >> E) Is there any filtering possible for OSPF-GT ? >> >> >> >> F) Are you envisioning use of OSPF-GT proxies and if so are you planning >> to add this to the document ? >> >> >> >> G) How are you going to address Receivers which do not support OSPF-GT >> parser ? >> >> >> >> H) As you know many operators are attracted to BGP-LS based on the fact >> that it offers the same view of information irrespective of what is the >> protocol producing the data. Is there some thought on such normalization in >> the OSPF-GT proposal ? >> >> >> >> I) What's the take of OSPF-GT draft authors on the YANG model in respect >> of using it for normalization of exported data ? >> >> >> >> To summarize IMHO we should not stretch routing protocols be it OSPF, >> ISIS or BGP to be messengers of link state data running and to artificially >> force them to run in a point-to-point model between router and controller. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 7:04 AM Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Since we’re discussing possible solutions, I’d like to bring up the >> draft: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance/ >> >> >> >> We just submitted a new version. The name of the document is changed to >> “OSPF-GT (Generalized Transport)”, and a use case is added to use OSPF-GT >> as a possible replacement of BGP-LS. >> >> >> >> Note: OSPF-GT is not traditional OSPF, and it’s not used to calculate >> routes. It uses the reachability info calculated by routing protocols, >> OSPF, ISIS or static routing etc.. It provides mechanisms to advertise >> non-routing information, and remote neighbor is supported. >> >> >> >> Reviews and comments are welcome. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Yingzhen >> >> >> >> On Jul 9, 2022, at 5:33 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> During the interim meeting we should keep it open to discuss all possible >> alternatives to BGP-LS. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Gyan >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 4:45 PM Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote: >> >> Jeff: >> >> >> >> An interim sounds like a good plan. >> >> >> >> [IDR-chair hat] >> >> Alvaro has indicated that since all of the proposal received on the IDR >> list are new protocol proposals, >> >> · Capturing IDR’s input on BGP-LS problems and potential >> solutions is appropriate for IDR as BGP-LS home. >> >> · Refining any potential non-BGP solutions is outside of the >> scope of IDR. >> >> >> >> [IDR-chair hat off] >> >> [rtgwg WG member] >> >> I’d love to attend an interim on this topic. >> >> >> >> Sue Hares >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Saturday, July 9, 2022 3:40 PM >> *To:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> >> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr <l...@ietf.org>; >> i...@ietf.org; Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>; grow@ietf.org grow@ietf.org >> <grow@ietf.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Speaking as RTGWG chair: >> >> >> >> Robert - I don’t think we’d have enough time to accommodate a good >> discussion during IETF114 (we got only 1 slot), however would be happy to >> provide a platform for an interim. >> >> The topic is important and personally (being a very large BGP-LS user) >> I’d like to see it progressing. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> On Jul 8, 2022, at 14:44, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> >> >> Yes, by all means input from the operator's community is needed. It can >> be collected through LSR WG, IDR WG or GROW WG. RTGWG could also >> contribute. We have already seen input from some operators and their >> opinion on adding and distributing more and more link state protocol and >> topology data in BGP. More such input is very welcome. >> >> >> >> And to your point about RFC9086 - I see nothing wrong in keeping BGP >> information in BGP. So IGP Monitoring Protocol does not target to shut down >> BGP-LS. It only aims to remove 100% of non BGP sourced information from it. >> >> >> >> Controllers which today listen to BGP-LS need a number of information >> sources and that spread will only keep increasing as more inputs are >> becoming necessary for its computations. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Robert. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:32 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Robert, >> >> >> >> *From: *Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> >> *Date: *Friday, July 8, 2022 at 4:36 PM >> *To: *Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com> >> *Cc: *lsr <l...@ietf.org>, IDR List <i...@ietf.org>, Susan Hares < >> sha...@ndzh.com> >> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol >> >> >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> >> >> Thank you. I was not planning to present it in the upcoming IETF. >> >> >> >> > Let’s see how many stakeholders actually want to this protocol - then >> we can talk about a WG home. >> >> >> >> An alternative approach could be to see how many stakeholders do not want >> to further (for no good reason) to trash BGP. That to me would be in this >> specific case a much better gauge. >> >> >> >> In that case, it seems to me that this discussion should be relegated to >> IDR. Note that there is already non-IGP information transported in BGP-LS, >> e.g., Egress Peer Engineering (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9086/). >> I implemented this on our data center routers (NXOS) years and it is solely >> BGP specific. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 9:54 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Speaking as WG chair: >> >> >> >> *From: *Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk < >> rob...@raszuk.net> >> *Date: *Friday, July 8, 2022 at 3:21 PM >> *To: *lsr <l...@ietf.org> >> *Cc: *IDR List <i...@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> >> *Subject: *[Lsr] IGP Monitoring Protocol >> >> >> >> Dear LSR WG, >> >> >> >> Based on ongoing discussion in respect to the future of BGP-LS I >> committed myself to put together an alternate proposal. >> >> >> >> The main goal is not to just publish a -00 version of the draft using >> different encapsulation. The goal is to make a useful tool which can help >> to export link state information from network elements as well as assist in >> network observability. >> >> >> >> The IGP Monitoring Protocol (IMP) draft has been posted and should be >> available at: >> >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raszuk-lsr-imp/ >> >> >> >> One of the key points I wanted to accomplish was full backwards >> compatibility with TLVs defined for BGP-LS. In parallel other formats >> (optional) are also supported. >> >> >> >> The PUB-SUB nature or FILTERING capabilities are in the spec however as >> noted in the deployment section there is no expectation that this should be >> supported directly on routers. Concept of Producer's Proxies has been >> introduced to support this added functionality as well as provide fan-out >> (analogy to BGP route reflectors). >> >> >> >> I encourage everyone interested to take a look and provide comments. At >> this point this document is nothing more than my individual submission. >> Offline I have had few conversations with both operators and vendors >> expressing some level of interest in this work. How we proceed further (if >> at all :) depends on WG feedback. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Robert. >> >> >> >> PS, I do believe this work belongs in LSR WG pretty squerly. >> >> >> >> Let’s see how many stakeholders actually want to this protocol - then we >> can talk about a WG home. By stakeholders, I mean operators and vendors >> who are committed to implementing and deploying it - not simply those who >> you are able to enlist as co-authors. Note that our IETF 114 LSR agenda is >> full (with multiple agenda items not making the cut). >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Acee >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Idr mailing list >> i...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GROW mailing list >> GROW@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> >> -- >> >> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> >> >> *Gyan Mishra* >> >> *Network Solutions Architect * >> >> *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* >> >> *M 301 502-1347* >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Idr mailing list >> i...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >> >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
