Hannes, On 10/23/13 12:27 AM, "Hannes Gredler" <[email protected]> wrote:
>acee, > >i think that 16 is an unreasonable max threshold as we have proof point >(e.g. link-colors) >that even 32 colors are not enough - so support for 64 colors is the bare >minimum >that SPs are looking for. >i fail to see the threat of overfilling the RI, with worst case 400 bytes >(100 colors). >furthermore it is an upper boundary number ... Will this limit be in the next revision of the draft? Thanks, Acee > >/hannes > >On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 08:05:09PM +0000, Acee Lindem wrote: >| I don't disagree that the typical use case is a single tag with the >likelihood of mult-tag use cases diminishing exponentially as the number >of tags increases. My point is that unbounded TLVs MUST NOT be included >in the OSPF RI LSA. What part of that is hard to understand? >| I think that 16 is a reasonable maximum and that beyond 16 would imply >encoding ulterior information that should have its own TLV or LSA anyway. >| Acee >| >| On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Anton Smirnov wrote: >| >| > Hi Acee, >| > it looks to me that the most probable deployment will use 1 tag. >Router advertising 100 tags already sounds unreasonable. >| > Defining new LSID to originate LSA with (typically) only 4 bytes of >useful information is not optimal. Choice of RI LSA to advertise some >small data is reasonable. >| > RI LSA is far from getting too big. If there is a concern of RI LSA >overfilling then we can extend range of opaque IDs - but is it really >necessary at this point? >| > >| > Anton >| > >| > >| > On 10/21/2013 09:55 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: >| >> I think we are in a circular argument here and I'm not discuss this >| >> independently with each of the authors. Either you have to limit the >| >> number of tags, define a new LSA, or do the work to make RI LSA >| >> multi-instance. All are viable alternatives with differing pros and >cons - >| >> including it in the existing RI LSA is not a viable alternative. >Remember >| >> to request a session if you plan to present it at IETF 88. >| >> Thanks, >| >> Acee >| >> >| >> On 10/21/13 12:49 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <[email protected]> wrote: >| >> >| >>> 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 >| >> >| >| _______________________________________________ >| OSPF mailing list >| [email protected] >| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >| >| > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
