Hi Tony, Peter, I plan to update the draft next week and address some of these clarifications.
Thanks, Acee On 9/5/14, 4:34 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Tony, > >please see inline: > >On 9/4/14 21:02 , A. Przygienda wrote: >> On 09/04/2014 12:24 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: >>> Hi Tony, >>> >>> please see inline: >> >> Hey Peter, same >> >>> >>> On 9/3/14 18:13 , A. Przygienda wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> It's also wise to add 'if the same extended prefix TLV (i.e. for same >>>> prefix) is seen twice in same opaque LSA only use the first and force >>>> people to put all sub-tlvs into a single tlv. >>> >>> it's kind of obvious, but we can add a text to be sure. >> >> As I see it, the purpose of an RFC is to assure interoperability. If >> there are two >> interpretations available of the same packet that will make two >> solutions not interoperable, >> the standard has to mandate the correct one. > >ok, we will add a text to make it clear. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> "OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done >>>> with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described >>>> in RFC 2328 [OSPFV2]. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based >>>> on Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate >>>> additional attributes with advertised prefixes or links." >>>> >>>> That's strongly suggestive of "you advertise normal LSA and then you >>>>use >>>> opaque to 'extend' it" . Extended extends and is not independent from >>>> original stuff in normal use of English idiom. >>> >>> because existing LSA are not extensible, any additional link/prefix >>> attributes must be advertised in a separate LSAs. We called it >>> "extended", but it does not mean that existence of the extended LSA >>> require existence of the base LSA. I had a text in the original SR >>> draft around that, we can add it here too. >> >> yepp, once it spelled out, it's obvious but the first conclusion one >> jumps to is that they are inter-dependent otherwise. > >ok, we will add a text to clarify. > >> >>> >>> >>>> .,.. >>>> the area that do not support opaques, an additional text is needed >>>> saying "never compute through routers without opaques using >>>>information >>>> in opaques that influences reachability or metrics". Actually, it's >>>> worse since if a router without opaques forwards through a router >>>> advertising opaques influencing metrics (for sake or simplicity), you >>>> cannot start using opaques to keep on forwarding. In case that all >>>> doesn't parse, I can do a simple looping example. >>> >>> we are not advertising any metrics in the extended LSAs, so I do not >>> see why we would have to deal with that case here. If one day someone >>> wants to do that, then it would have to be covered in a separate draft >>> and we would deal with it at that time. >> >> agreed here. you're correct. That would be overspecification in this >>draft >> >>> >>>> OK, I still don't understand 'WHICH flooding scope', the type-3 vs. >>>> type-5 one or the 'opaque flodding scope one'. I think you mean 'all >>>> prefixes in the same opaque must have the same OSPF-route-type >>>> [0+unevens]' but the text is really hard to parse here. >>>> >>>> Acee, you mean remove the restriction ? I see how some >>>>implementations >>>> may benefit from cramming all type-3 into the same opaque but I would >>>> also suggest to not restrict this and remove the text. >>> >>> the restriction can not be removed. All the Extended Prefix TLVs that >>> you put in a singe Extended Prefix LSA will only use a flooding scope >>> of the Extended LSA itself. >> >> I still think it's not clear what the original paragraph means. > >prefixes can have different flooding scope. Today intra-area and >inter-area prefixes have area flooding scope and external prefixes have >domain wide flooding scope. You can not mix prefixes of different >flooding scope in a single Extended Prefix LSA, because Extended Prefix >LSA can only have a single flooding scope. > >> >>> >>>> yes, and again, I think 'extended' is an ill chosen name maybe if >>>>that's >>>> the intention of the draft. >>>> >>>> BTW, what is the plan if all the TLVs blow out the MTU of the opaque ? >>> >>> you can generate many Extended Prefix or Extended Link LSAs, so there >>> is no issue. >> >> ack >> >>> >>>> I'm missing something ? RFC5250 is not describing how the instance >>>> (they call it Opaque ID) is supposed to be generated (it references >>>> appendix A referencing section 7 which has nothing in it about this). >>>> I'm divining the instance allows to have multiple opaques of the same >>>> type which leads to bunch interesting discussions >>>> * what happens when the MTU gets blown & TLVs are shifted into >>>> next 'fragment' in ISIS speak [with all the restrictions how the TLVs >>>> can migrate between fragments, ISIS guys suffered this one [as did >>>>PNNI] >>>> @ length & will surely lend a helping hand in such a case]. >>> >>> TLVs can come and go and move from one Extended Opaque LSA to the >>> other. Implementation needs to track these changes and deal with them. >> >> I would let the ISIS guys chime in here. They have tons experience with >> TLVs sliding fragments and what kind of implementation/operation pain >> that can cause. >> >>> >>> >>>> * what happens if the same extended prefix TLV shows up twice >>>>in >>>> two different opaques of same type ? You use the one that is in lower >>>> opaque ID ? >>> >>> I would call it a bug on the originator side. >> >> yes, but still, the draft should mandate what the desired behavior is @ >> this point in time otherwise some will use the lower ID, some higher and >> some none of the above & the implementations will not interop ? > >ok, we will add a tiebreaker there. > >thanks, >Peter >> >> --- tony >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> . >> > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
