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) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > > > *From: *Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Sunday, July 10, 2022 at 1:32 PM > *To: *Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Gyan Mishra <[email protected]>, Susan Hares <[email protected]>, > IDR List <[email protected]>, "[email protected] [email protected]" <[email protected]>, > lsr <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 9, 2022 3:40 PM > *To:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Susan Hares <[email protected]>; [email protected] [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > > *From: *Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, July 8, 2022 at 4:36 PM > *To: *Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > *Cc: *lsr <[email protected]>, IDR List <[email protected]>, Susan Hares < > [email protected]> > *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) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Speaking as WG chair: > > > > *From: *Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, July 8, 2022 at 3:21 PM > *To: *lsr <[email protected]> > *Cc: *IDR List <[email protected]>, Susan Hares <[email protected]> > *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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > > -- > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > > >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
