The "Applicability" section of the draft talks about why RI LSA is chosen as the node-tag TLV carrier instead of TE LSA.
The point I am trying make here is, if the link-color is carried in a TLV, Node color could also be carried in TLV and we don't need a new LSA for that. Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 12:53 AM To: Shraddha Hegde Cc: Acee Lindem; Hannes Gredler; OSPF List; Rob Shakir; Harish Raghuveer Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Shraddha Hegde wrote: > <Acee> Actually, I think separate LSAs is a better alternative. > > <Shraddha> Node-tag is a just another property of the node. OSPFv2/v3 > have achieved the desired functionality using numerous link/node properties > using TLVs in TE-LSA so I don't see an absolute necessity of going with a new > LSA. Shraddha - If you think the Router-Information LSA is the same as the TE LSA you have not read RFC 4970. Acee > > Rgds > Shraddha > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 8:55 PM > To: Hannes Gredler > Cc: OSPF List; Rob Shakir; Harish Raghuveer > Subject: Re: [OSPF] Review Request: New Version Notification for > draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00.txt > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
