Warren – The problem I have with your suggestion is that we do not know whether the destination protocol for redistribution even supports the signaling.
I am very supportive of Acee’s characterization of redistribution as outside the scope of specification. I think we can say what happens intra-protocol – but we should stay away from inter-protocol statements. Les From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Warren Kumari Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 2:08 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>; [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT) On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 1:34 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Warren, From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 at 1:25 PM To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Alvaro Retana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT) Resent-From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Christian Hopps <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 at 1:25 PM On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:28 AM Peter Psenak <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Warren, On 15/05/2020 03:25, Warren Kumari via Datatracker wrote: > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Nit: “ When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a > prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other protocol, it > SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix.“ > > S/the /OSPF/OSPF/. fixed. thanks! > > S/for the prefix/for the prefix (if it exists)/ — some protocols will not have > / carry the ELC. fixed. thanks! > > Apologies if I missed it, but I didn’t see discussion on *exporting* ELC into > other protocols... what do you mean by "exporting"? Sorry -- the above discusses : "When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a prefix ... FROM some other protocol, " (imports), but presumably you would also like to be able to do "When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a prefix **INTO** some other protocol, ..." (exports). Yes, the "other protocol" document should describe this in detail, but I think that it is worth mentioning the topic here -- we may be helpful for implementers to keep in mind that this may occur, and so the data should be reachable (likely through the RIB). Can you suggest some text? Do you realize that in the Routing Area, route redistribution (aka, route import/export) has always been considered an implementation matter and is not formally specified. It would hard to standardize this now (other than Routing Policy YANG model) due to differences between implementations. Sure -- how about something like: When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other protocol, it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix. **In addition ASBRs should allow the ELC signaling for the prefix to be preserved when redistributing to another instance of OSPF or to some other protocol** (Addition in asterisks). Note that this is just a suggestion / not a hill I care to die on -- as an ops person, when I read "you should be able to preserve X when importing into Y", I automatically start wondering how / if I can preserve X when exporting from Y. But, 'm also fine if y'all don't want to address this, W Thanks, Acee W thanks, Peter > > > > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
