... and apparently I'd lied to you, both in the Ballot itself, and also in this thread. I'd said that I had balloted NoObjection, but apparently I'd hit No Comment instead. I'm fixing it now; mentioning just for the record... W
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:29 PM Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:46 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Warren, >> >> Thanks for your review and please check inline below. Will look forward >> to your inputs on how best to incorporate them in the draft. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email protected]> >> Sent: 31 March 2021 00:53 >> To: The IESG <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Warren Kumari's No Record on >> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-09: (with COMMENT) >> >> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-09: No Record >> >> 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-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I'm balloting No Objection, but I really would like a response... >> >> 1: I'm assuming I'm just missing something obvious here, but Section 2.2 >> sayeth: >> "A received Prefix Source Router Address Sub-TLV that has an invalid >> length (i.e. not consistent with the prefix's address family) or a Router >> Address containing an invalid IPv4 or IPv6 address (dependent on address >> family of the associated prefix) MUST be considered invalid and ignored. " >> >> What is an "invalid IPv4" address here? If the length is 4, and the route >> address is 00000001 or 0xc0a80001, how do you know that that's not what I'm >> using? Again, I suspect that there is something obvious that I'm missing >> here... >> [KT] I did some digging around and was not really able to find a good >> reference to what would be "invalid IPv4" in this context. 0x00000001 would >> be invalid but 0xc0a80001 would be valid. A multicast or ClassE or >> 0xffffffff would also be invalid. Basically, any address that cannot be >> used as Router Address (i.e. >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.4.1) would be invalid. Not >> sure if we should just remove the "invalid" part here or to attempt to go >> about specifying it. >> > > I'd suggest just removing it -- trying to specify what "invalid" means in > this case will likely lead to madness. If you really want to keep it, I'd > suggest just saying something along the lines of "A received Prefix Source > Router Address Sub-TLV that has an invalid length (i.e. not consistent with > the prefix's address family) or a Router Address containing any address > that cannot be used as Router Address (i.e. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.4.1) MUST be considered > invalid and ignored." If it were me, I'd just delete the last bit, and back > away slowly.... Actually, I'm not even sure that ignoring it *is* the right > answer. If I look through $whatever and see a Router Address of 0xffffffff, > it is "meaningless", but possibly it is evidence that something, somewhere, > is horribly borked, and I should probably go investigate. > > > >> >> 2: This presumable has the side effect of increasing the size of the >> lsdb, possibly by a fairly large margin. It seems like it would have been >> nice to include an operational considerations section noting this, and, >> while you are at it, that this document will significantly aid in >> debugging.... >> [KT] Almost all of the protocol extensions do result in increase of the >> LSDB size. However, depending on the use-case, these extensions may be used >> for select prefixes (e.g. the leaf networks to which traffic/service flows >> are destined to). The Sec 3 does have the following text that touches upon >> mitigation for this scaling part: >> >> Implementations MAY support the selection of specific prefixes for >> which the originating node information needs to be included with >> their prefix advertisements. >> >> Implementations MAY provide control on ABRs to selectively disable >> the propagation of the originating node information across area >> boundaries. >> > > Noted (and that all extensions do increase the LSDB size) -- this > extension is *possibly* different in that it seems that it has larger > scope. Whatever the case, a simple "This may provide information hiding, > and also limit the increase of the LSDB size" or "Consideration should be > given to the operational impact of the increase in LSDB size" somewhere > would make me a happy bunny. Note that my ballot is a NoObjection > (non-blocking), and I will not be overly sad if you ignore this... > > > >> >> [KT] Regarding the debugging part - I agree. Should we add an operational >> considerations section here or just include this aspect in the introduction >> within the following text? >> >> The primary use case for the extensions proposed in this document is >> to be able to identify the originator of a prefix in the network. In >> cases where multiple prefixes are advertised by a given router, it is >> also useful to be able to associate all these prefixes with a single >> router even when prefixes are advertised outside of the area in which >> they originated. It also helps to determine when the same prefix is >> being originated by multiple routers across areas. >> > > Either. I'd personally like an operational considerations section (hey, > I'm an OpsAD, I *always* want an Operational Consideration section :-)), > but I'm also fine with this just being stuffed elsewhere in the document. > If you**do** add an operational consideration section it would be a perfect > place for the above comment :-) > > >> >> Thanks, >> Ketan >> >> > > -- > The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the > complexities of his own making. > -- E. W. Dijkstra > -- The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the complexities of his own making. -- E. W. Dijkstra
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
