Les, > Nice acronym. 😊
Thank you. I blame the wordle craze. :) > As regards the original use case (Node Liveness), my opinion hasn’t changed. > Repackaging this in a more generic wrapper (which makes sense to me) doesn’t > alter my opinion – which is this isn’t a good way to go. This is well known and does not need restatement. :) > As regards the new use case (Capabilities), I think what you state as > historical behavior isn’t accurate. If you look at the existing sub-TLVs for > Router Capability, the information falls into two categories: > Stuff directly used by the protocol > TE related stuff (e.g., PCE) > > I would oppose any attempt to move stuff directly used by the protocol out of > Router Capability and force the IGP to get this info from some application. And that’s not what I was suggesting. I am NOT suggesting we move anything that is currently defined, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. I would simply like to avoid forthcoming atrocities. > Which leaves stuff NOT used by the IGP. The only existing example which > “might” fall into this category is: S-BFD Discriminators – which we stuck > into the IGP for lack of a better place. > I therefore think your language regarding what is/is not a good candidate for > DROID capability advertisement needs refinement. As written, it suggests that > there are lots of existing cases that are being advertised by the IGP > inappropriately – which I do not think is the case. Well, we can continue to disagree. I was, in fact, thinking of the slew of capabilities that are about to be proposed for the MPLS MNA work. I know of about ten new capabilities just from that direction. > I also think that asking the IGP to advertise the location(s) of DROID is an > abuse of the IGP – the very thing that you have argued should not be done. > The IGP – and specifically Router Capabilities – is not intended to serve as > a form of DNS – advertising the location of application services in the > network. Yup. One small sin to prevent a host of subsequent sins. > It is ironic to me – given that you have framed DROID as motivated by > “anti-IGP-as-a-dumptruck” – that you would then abuse the IGP by asking it > to advertise the location of DROID. It opens the door to others who want the > IGPs to advertise application stuff – but when that is rejected by LSR WG (as > it should be) they say “OK – but can we advertise the identity of a place to > get the info in Router Capabilities?”. > This is unjustifiable IMO – please remove it. I will be happy to do as soon as there is a working service discovery protocol. But I’m not holding my breath. Until then this is expedient. > Finally, there is the question of where such a draft belongs. LSR seems like > the wrong place. > Where are you headed with this? The LSR chairs have said that this is an appropriate home for now. There is no point in discussing this. Nothing has changed. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
