Hi Les,
Looks good. See one suggestion.
On 9/24/22, 5:23 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote:
Alvaro -
I have given your comments regarding clearer guidance on what value to use
for router id more thought and tried to address this in V5 of the document
(recently posted).
I introduced a new sub-section "Choosing the TE Router ID Value",
discussing how to choose the value for IPv4 and IPv6.
Consistent with the terminology in RFC 5308, I'd use " IPv6 Interface Address
TLV" and " non-link-local IPv6 address" in the second paragraph.
Thanks,
Acee
Subsequent sections now refer to this section.
Note that V5 also addresses comments from:
Rob Wilton
Eric Vyncke
Lars Eggert
Paul Wouters
Let me know if you still have concerns.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 9:30 PM
> To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
lsr@ietf.org;
> cho...@chopps.org; t...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with
> DISCUSS)
>
> Alvaro -
>
> Please see inline.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 6:06 AM
> > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
> > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org;
lsr@ietf.org;
> > cho...@chopps.org; t...@ietf.org
> > Subject: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04:
(with
> > DISCUSS)
> >
> > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: Discuss
> >
> > 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> > positions/
> > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> > positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I am balloting DISCUSS because I believe the specification is not clear
> enough.
> >
> > (1) The document recommends (5 separate times) that an ID "SHOULD be
> > identical
> > to the value advertised" in an existing TLV.
> >
> > If the other TLV is advertised, when is it ok for the values not to be
the
> > same? Why is this action recommended and not required?
> >
> [LES:] The new text in Section 3.1 introduces a couple of new (as compared
> to the original RFC 5316 text) possibilities:
>
> 1)The non-zero value could be identical to what is advertised in TLV 134
or it
> could be identical to what is advertised in TLV 132 (IP Interface
Address).
> This allows for cases where a Router ID is not configured but a stable
unique
> IPv4 address is still advertised for the node.
>
> 2)The Router ID is 0.0.0.0 because we are dealing with an IPv6 only
> deployment.
>
> Now, I suppose we could say the Router ID field SHOULD/MUST be identical
> to TLV 134 except when TLV 134 isn't advertised (which is perfectly legal
> BTW) - but I find such text awkward at best - and (as per my reply to Tom
et
> al) a MUST here is overly restrictive.
> Does this help address your concern?
>
> > Should the receiver of these TLVs take any action if the values are not
> > identical?
>
> [LES:] No.
>
> >
> > (2) §3.1: The requirement for the Router ID to be unique within the
> flooding
> > scope of the LSP has been removed.
>
> [LES:] We are not changing anything about TLV 134 (AKA TE Router ID ) .
But
> given the multiple ways the field in the inter AS TLV can be filled in,
it no
> longer seemed appropriate to make this statement.
> The need for uniqueness of the TE Router ID still exists - but it is the
province
> of RFC 5305.
>
> Les
>
> >
> > Please help me understand why this change is ok. If the Router ID can
be
> > used
> > to identify "the router who generates the inter-AS reachability TLV",
not
> > requiring unique values seems to go counter to that idea.
> >
> >
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
