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 protected]> wrote: > Send OSPF mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > 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 protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > 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 protected]> > To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]> > 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 protected]] *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 protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM > *To: *OSPF WG List <[email protected]> > *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 protected]> > To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> > Cc: OSPF List <[email protected]> > 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 protected]> 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 protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]>, OSPF WG List <[email protected]> > 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 protected]] *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem > (acee) > *Sent:* Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:27 PM > *To:* OSPF WG List <[email protected]> > *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 protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:45 PM > *To: *OSPF WG List <[email protected]> > *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 protected] > 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
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
