On Oct 21, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 02:10:04PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote: > | > | On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote: > | > | On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:32:54PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote: > | | Hannes, > | | > | | On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote: > | | > | | > acee, > | | > > | | > why should we give an upper boundary on things which > | | > - might be subject to change and > | | > - which have a historic track record of being underestimated. > | | > | | You don't have to - just request a separate OSPFv2 opaque LSA and > | IPv6 OSPFv3 LSA from IANA. > | | Another alternative would be to extend the RI LSA to be multi- > | instance and relegate the variable length tags to an instance other > | than instance 0. > | > | again the question why i do have to ? > | i can perfectly fit in single-digit as well as a few dozens of colors > | in a single RI LSA > | - what is your concern - except that we may use inappropriate large > | space for TE ? > | any reasonable implementation SHOULD restrict the node color set, > | such > | that overwhelming the 64K of RI LSPs is not going to happen. > | > | We don't want a standard that leaves room for "unreasonable" > | implementations ;^). I think the policy in RFC 4970 is clear. Here is an > | excerpt: > > oh boy - i wish i could let the non-sense disappear just with good > standard docs ;-) - but i hear you - so all you're asking for is an > upper boundary ? - is 128 low enough to not scare you and > be compliant to the below paragraph.
Actually, I think separate LSAs is a better alternative. > > | 3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability > | > | The purpose of the Router Information (RI) LSA is to advertise > | information relating to the aggregate OSPF router. Normally, this > | should be confined to TLVs with a single value or very few values. > | It is not meant to be a generic container to carry any and all > | information. The intent is to both limit the size of the RI LSA to > | the point where an OSPF router will always be able to contain the > | TLVs in a single LSA and to keep the task of determining what has > | changed between LSA instances reasonably simple. Hence, discretion > | and sound engineering judgment will need to be applied when deciding > | whether newly proposed TLV(s) in support of a new application are > | advertised in the RI LSA or warrant the creation of an application > | specific LSA. > | > | > | Anyway, this hasn't even been presented or accepted as a WG document. > > which is not a reason why we should not discuss how to iron out the bumpy > parts now. Right. Thanks, Acee > > thanks ! > > /hannes > > | | > the 'per-link' admin-groups serve as a good example here: > | | > initially conceived as "you won't ever need more than > | 32" we have > | | > now arrived at a variable length (unbounded) extension. > | | > > | | > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-osborne-mpls-extended-admin- > | groups-00 > | | > > | | > for a humorous take to it, have a look at > | | > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1925 > | | > rule (9) and (10) > | | > > | | > /hannes > | | > > | | > On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > | | > > | | >> Hi Shraddha, > | | >> Since the size of the tag data is unbounded, could you either > | put it in a separate OSPFv2 opaque LSA and OSPFv3 LSA or limit the > | size to some maximum number of tags, e.g., 16? > | | >> Thanks, > | | >> Acee > | | >> On Oct 21, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Shraddha Hegde wrote: > | | >> > | | >>> Hi All, > | | >>> > | | >>> We have posted a draft on " Advertising per-node > | administrative tags in OSPF" and would like to hear your views > | on it. Please feel free to raise any suggestion/comment on the > | content. > | | >>> > | | >>> Rgds > | | >>> Shraddha > | | >>> > | | >>> -----Original Message----- > | | >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:internet- > | [email protected]] > | | >>> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 4:24 PM > | | >>> To: Harish Raghuveer; Shraddha Hegde; British Telecom; Hannes > | Gredler; Rob Shakir > | | >>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node- > | admin-tag-00.txt > | | >>> > | | >>> > | | >>> A new version of I-D, draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt > | | >>> has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to > | the IETF repository. > | | >>> > | | >>> Filename: draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag > | | >>> Revision: 00 > | | >>> Title: Advertising per-node administrative tags in OSPF > | | >>> Creation date: 2013-10-21 > | | >>> Group: Individual Submission > | | >>> Number of pages: 6 > | | >>> URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- > | hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt > | | >>> Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde- > | ospf-node-admin-tag > | | >>> Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hegde-ospf- > | node-admin-tag-00 > | | >>> > | | >>> > | | >>> Abstract: > | | >>> This document describes an extension to OSPF protocol [RFC2328] > | to > | | >>> add an optional operational capability, that allows tagging and > | | >>> grouping of the nodes in an OSPF domain. This allows > | | >>> simplification,ease of management and control over route and > | path > | | >>> selection based on configured policies. > | | >>> > | | >>> This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate > | per- > | | >>> node admin-tags to the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocols. > | | >>> > | | >>> > | | >>> > | | >>> > | | >>> > | | >>> 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 > | | >>> > | | >>> > | | >>> > | | >>> _______________________________________________ > | | >>> OSPF mailing list > | | >>> [email protected] > | | >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > | | >> > | | >> _______________________________________________ > | | >> OSPF mailing list > | | >> [email protected] > | | >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > | | >> > | | >> > | | > > | | > > | | > | | > | | > | > | > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
