Hi Aijun,
we have made a similar discussion in the context of the Appendix A of
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator. I have made it very clear that
using IP reachability advertisement to derive any topological data is
incorrect and broken. Same applies here. I'm not going to change my opinion.
thanks,
Peter
On 30/09/2020 04:38, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Acee and Peter:
Passive interface is mainly used at the edge of the network, where the
unnumbered interface will not be used.
And the information to flag the passive interfaces is for positioning the area
boundary, not conflict with the abstract capabilities of the area inside.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee
Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 9:16 PM
To: Peter Psenak <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang
<[email protected]>; 'Aijun Wang' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt
Speaking as WG member:
Hi Aijun, Peter,
I agree with Peter - one of the main motivations for having areas is to
abstract the topology within the area. Now you're trying to supplant this -
one topological detail at a time with ill-conceived IGP features.
Thanks,
Acee
On 9/29/20, 5:15 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" <[email protected] on
behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Aijun,
On 29/09/2020 11:07, Aijun Wang wrote:
> Hi, Peter:
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> 1. For BGP-LS deployment, there normally only be one router that within
the
> IGP domain to report the topology information, this router should know
such
> passive links which exists mainly on other border routers via the IGP
> protocol. This is main reason to extension the IGP protocol. > 2. For
the solution, normally, the link within the IGP connect two
ends, but
> passive interface is special and not fall in this space. We have studied
the
> current TLVs that for link, and find no suitable container to append this
> information. This is the reason that we select the TLVs that associated
with
> Prefix.
if the link is unnumbered, your solution does not work. As I said, if
you need a knowledge about the link, you can not advertise it as a prefix.
thanks,
Peter
>
>>From other POV, the OSPFv3 defines now the "Intra-Area-Prefix LSA", which
> isolate the prefix information that associated with link into this
> container, contains the stub link, local interface information etc. Put
such
> attribute along with the prefix is then acceptable?
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Peter
> Psenak
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 4:29 PM
> To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for
> draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt
>
> Hi Aijun,
>
> here's my comments:
>
> The purpose of this draft is to advertise passive links.
>
> 1. I'm not sure the problem needs to be solved by IGPs. I tend to believe
> ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext is sufficient.
>
> 2. the solution that you proposed is wrong. You are trying to derive
> topological data about the passive links from the prefix advertisement.
> This is semantically incorrect and only works under very specific
condition.
> If you need to advertise a link, advertise it as a "special"
> link, not as a "special" prefix.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
> On 29/09/2020 03:17, Aijun Wang wrote:
>> Hi, Peter:
>>
>> Would you like to review and give comments on the updates version of
this
> draft?
>> We have also added the protocol extension proposal for OSPFv3.
>>
>> The update version of this draft can refer to
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface
>> -attribute
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Aijun Wang
>> China Telecom
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 3:17 PM
>>> To: Zhibo Hu <[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra
>>> <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]>;
>>> Gyan S. Mishra <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>> draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> A new version of I-D,
>>> draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by Aijun Wang and posted to the IETF
>>> repository.
>>>
>>> Name: draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute
>>> Revision: 04
>>> Title: Passive Interface Attribute
>>> Document date: 2020-09-28
>>> Group: Individual Submission
>>> Pages: 7
>>> URL:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.
>>> txt
>>> Status:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-att
>>> r
>>> ibute/
>>> Htmlized:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interfac
>>> e
>>> -attribut
>>> e
>>> Htmlized:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribut
>>> e
>>> -04
>>> Diff:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-at
>>> t
>>> ribute-04
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>> This document describes the mechanism that can be used to
>>> differentiate the passive interfaces from the normal interfaces
>>> within ISIS or OSPF domain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>>>
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
