Hi Xiaohu, Please include the precise use cases as to WHY this is needed OSPF draft. And by precise, I don't mean just listing MPLS applications, I mean explaining why you need this routable address above and beyond what is already advertised. At least in the case of OSPF, I'm not convinced. Thanks, Acee
-----Original Message----- From: Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, May 11, 2014 6:44 PM To: Ericsson <[email protected]> Cc: Karsten Thomann <[email protected]>, Anton Smirnov <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Wes George <[email protected]>, Joel jaeggli <[email protected]>, OSPF - OSPF WG List <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: 答复: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >Hi Acee, > >IMHO, segment routing could work together with the RFC3464 VPN. In such >case, the segment routing just replace the role of LDP or RSVP-TE of >establishing a transport LSP between PE routers. > >Best regards, >Xiaohu > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] >> 发送时间: 2014年5月9日 20:11 >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >> 抄送: Karsten Thomann; Anton Smirnov; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; Wes George; Joel jaeggli; OSPF List; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >> Xiaohu, >> >> The reason the use case is confusing is that the term L3VPN is commonly >>used to >> refer to RFC 4364 VPNs. In your use case, you are hypothesizing >>something for >> Segment Routed L3VPNs that I’m not sure is needed with MPLS. Can you add >> some real use cases to your drafts with justification that it is needed? >> >> Acee >> On May 9, 2014, at 5:31 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Karsten, >> > >> > Your understanding is completely correct. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Xiaohu >> > >> >> -----邮件原件----- >> >> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Karsten Thomann >> >> 发送时间: 2014年5月9日 16:58 >> >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Anton Smirnov >> >> 抄送: [email protected]; George, Wes; [email protected]; joel >> >> jaeggli; OSPF List; [email protected]; [email protected] >> >> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >> >> >> Hi Xiaohu, >> >> >> >> I think I've understand your problem now, but please don't call it a >> >> Router ID, the router ID must not be an IP address. >> >> To avoid any confusion about it please call it a router ip or router >> >> address within the TLV. >> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand your drafts right >> >> you're not requesting a real IPv6 Router ID instead of the >> >> (arbitrary) 32bit ID, but a simple TLV to carry the routable IPv6 >> >> address of the router which advertises the capability. >> >> >> >> If I understand it right, we should maybe fix the text of the other >> >> rfc to refect that it is an routable IP address, instead of a >> >> (possible) arbitrary but unique Router ID. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> Karsten >> >> >> >> Am 09.05.2014 02:53, schrieb Xuxiaohu: >> >>> Hi Anton, >> >>> >> >>> When ISIS capability TLVs are flooded across areas, routers in one >> >>> area may >> >> need to establish correlations between IP addresses and capabilities >> >> of routers in another area. For example, assume IS-IS router A in one >> >> area has established a L3VPN session with IS-IS router B in another >> >> area. When router A needs to send L3VPN traffic to router B via a >> >> MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know whether router B (identified >> >> by an IP address) has the ELC >> >> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) before >> >> inserting an EL into the MPLS-SR packet. In such case, it needs to >> >> contain at least one routable IP address in the capability TLV which >> >> has been flooded across area boundaries. In the IPv4 network, the >> >> 4-octect router ID field could contain such routable IPv4 address. >> >> However, in the IPv6 network, there is no counterpart field to >>contain a >> routable IPv6 address. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> Xiaohu >> >>> >> >>>> -----邮件原件----- >> >>>> 发件人: Anton Smirnov [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月8日 22:49 >> >>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >> >>>> 抄送: [email protected]; George, Wes; [email protected]; joel >> >>>> jaeggli; OSPF List; [email protected]; [email protected] >> >>>> 主题: Re: [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >>>> >> >>>> Hello Xiaohu, >> >>>> this whole thread started from George Wes stating that even in >> >>>> pure >> >>>> IPv4 world Router ID in many protocols is NOT an IPv4 address. For >> >>>> convenience it frequently is but on the binary scale "ID guaranteed >> >>>> to be routable IPv4 address"/"ID is just a number" - the Router ID >> >>>> is NOT an >> >> IPv4 address. >> >>>> >> >>>> So, before you convince people that IPv6 Rtr ID is needed you >> >>>> must start from discussing when and why Router ID is being used as >> >>>> IPv4 address in pure >> >>>> IPv4 world. I believe this in other words is what Acee asking you. >> >>>> >> >>>> Anton >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 05/07/2014 03:10 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Acee, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The motivation for these two drafts >> >>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id-00 and >> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id-00) is very >> >>>> simple: the >> >>>> IPv6 ISIS|OSPF capability TLV/RI-LSA which are used for advertising >> >>>> router capabilities can be flooded across areas, however, only a >> >>>> 4-octect router ID is carried in them. As a result, it’s hard for >> >>>> routers in one area to establish correlations between IPv6 >> >>>> addresses and >> >> capabilities of routers in another area. >> >>>> For example, assume IS-IS router A in one area has established a >> >>>> L3VPN session with IS-IS router B in another area over their own >> >>>> IPv6 addresses. When router A needs to send L3VPN traffic to router >> >>>> B via a MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know whether router B has >> >>>> the ELC >> >>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) before >> >>>> inserting an EL into the MPLS-SR packet . However, the Capability >> >>>> TLV originated by router B doesn’t carried an IPv6 address of its >> >>>> own. As a result, >> >> it ! >> >>>> s hard fo >> >>>> r router A to know the ELC of router B. >> >>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>> Xiaohu >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> -----邮件原件----- >> >>>>>> 发件人: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>>>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月6日 21:14 >> >>>>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >> >>>>>> 抄送: joel jaeggli; Acee Lindem; George, Wes; [email protected]; >> >>>>>> OSPF List; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> >>>>>> [email protected] >> >>>>>> 主题: Re: [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On May 5, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -----邮件原件----- >> >>>>>>>> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 joel jaeggli >> >>>>>>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月5日 23:55 >> >>>>>>>> 收件人: Acee Lindem; Xuxiaohu; George, Wes >> >>>>>>>> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> >>>>>>>> [email protected]; [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On 5/5/14, 9:28 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Xiaohu – what are precisely the situations that you think you >> >>>>>>>>> need this >> >>>>>>>>> IPv6 address? >> >>>>>>>>> Acee >> >>>>>>>> if you're using router-id's as equivalency as an ipv4 unicast >>addresses. >> >>>>>>>> you're doing so at your peril because there is zero assurance >> >>>>>>>> that those actually map. the first time you have a router id of >> >>>>>>>> 11100000000000000000000000000101 well bummer. >> >>>>>>> The IPv6 router ID sub-TLV of the ISIS router capability TLV >> >>>>>>> must carry a >> >>>>>> "routable" IPv6 address. If the name of the sub-TLV seems >> >>>>>> confusing, it can be changed to IPv6 address sub-TLV. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Independent of what you call it, you didn’t answer my question. >> >>>>>> Other than TE, what the use cases where it is needed? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Acee >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>>>> Xiaohu >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I don't find the embedding of semantic meaning in router-ids to >> >>>>>>>> be more compelling then it was in ip addresses. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> From: Xuxiaohu <[email protected] >> >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:29 AM >> >>>>>>>>> To: "George, Wes" <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>>>>>>> Cc: OSPF - OSPF WG List <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >> >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Wes, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing out these two drafts. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The motivation for these two drafts >> >>>>>>>>> >>(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id-00 and >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id-00) is >> >> very >> >>>>>>>>> simple: the IPv6 ISIS|OSPF capability TLV/RI-LSA which are >> >>>>>>>>> used >> >> for >> >>>>>>>>> advertising router capabilities can be flooded across >>areas, >> >>>>>>>>> however, only a 4-octect router ID is carried in them. As >>a >> result, >> >>>>>>>>> it’s hard for routers in one area to establish >> >>>>>>>>> correlations >> >> between >> >>>>>>>>> IPv6 addresses and capabilities of routers in another >>area. For >> >>>>>>>>> example, assume IS-IS router A in one area has established >> >>>>>>>>> a >> >> L3VPN >> >>>>>>>>> session with IS-IS router B in another area over their >>own IPv6 >> >>>>>>>>> addresses. When router A needs to send L3VPN traffic to >> >>>>>>>>> router B >> >>>> via >> >>>>>>>>> a MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know whether router B >> >>>>>>>>> has >> >>>> the >> >>>>>>>>> ELC (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) >> >>>>>>>>> before >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00)%20before> >> >>>>>>>>> inserting an EL into the MPLS-SR packet . However, the >> >> Capability >> >>>>>>>>> TLV originated by router B doesn’t carried an IPv6 >>address of >> its >> >>>>>>>>> own. As a result, it’s hard for router A to know the ELC >> >>>>>>>>> of >> >> router B. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Xiaohu >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *发件人:*George, Wes [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>>>>>>>> *发送时间:*2014年5月2日1:51 >> >>>>>>>>> *收件人:*Xuxiaohu >> >>>>>>>>> *抄送:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>; >> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >> >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>>>>>>>> *主题:*Re: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I got a bounce-back on all 3 draft aliases, trying again >>with the >> >>>>>>>>> authors’s email addresses directly. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> *From: *<George>, "George, Wes" >> >> <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Date: *Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM >> >>>>>>>>> *To: *"[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> >>>>>>>>> "[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Cc: *"[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" >> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> >>>>>>>>> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> >> <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>>>>>>>> *Subject: *[sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I see that you have submitted two drafts for IPv6 router >> >>>>>>>>> IDs in >> >> ISIS >> >>>>>>>>> and OSPF, noting that the existing router ID is only 4 >>octets. >> This >> >>>>>>>>> has also come up in IDR for BGP. The authors of that >>draft are >> >>>>>>>>> copied. I’ll give you a similar set of feedback to what I >> >>>>>>>>> gave them - >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> It is important to distinguish between places where a >>unique >> >>>>>>>>> identifier is needed, and by *convention* an IPv4 address >> >> assigned >> >>>>>>>>> to the device has been used to provide that unique ID, vs. >> places >> >>>>>>>>> where the actual IP address has some sort of importance to >> the >> >>>>>>>>> protocol (I.e. That information must be available to take >> >>>>>>>>> action >> >> on). >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> In other words, is the protocol requirement that the ID be >> >> unique >> >>>>>>>>> across some domain, but that the actual value does not >> >>>>>>>>> matter, >> >> or is >> >>>>>>>>> the protocol requirement that the value must correspond to >> >>>> something >> >>>>>>>>> on the router? In many of the former cases, the fact that >> >>>>>>>>> the >> >> value >> >>>>>>>>> isn’t relevant has been used to make recommendations that >> >>>>>>>>> are >> >>>> easier >> >>>>>>>>> for humans to deal with (I.e. Tying the router ID to an IP >> >> address) >> >>>>>>>>> but that value as a human-readable set of info does not >> >> necessarily >> >>>>>>>>> justify changes to the protocol to support that >> >>>>>>>>> convention as >> >> we >> >>>>>>>>> move to IPv6. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I would argue that the router ID used in routing protocols >> must >> >>>>>>>>> merely be unique, but it doesn’t have to be an IP address >>at >> all. >> >>>>>>>>> Thus it is not strictly necessary to create a new field >>to carry >> >>>>>>>>> IPv6 addresses when operating without IPv4 addresses on a >> >>>> network. >> >>>>>>>>> If you believe otherwise, the justification needs to be >> >> documented >> >>>>>>>>> in the draft. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> There are many places in IETF protocols where a 32 bit >>unique >> >>>>>>>>> identifier is needed, and by convention an IPv4 address >> >>>>>>>>> has >> >> been >> >>>>>>>>> used. It would be far more useful to write a general draft >> >>>>>>>>> identifying this problem and discussing several solutions, >> >> including >> >>>>>>>>> simply generating unique IDs manually, systematically >> >> generating a >> >>>>>>>>> random ID, etc. the place for such a draft may be in >>Sunset4, >> >>>>>>>>> either as a part of the existing gap analysis draft or as >>another >> >>>>>>>>> standalone draft. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> There was rather a long discussion about this on IDR, >>thread >> >>>>>>>>> here: >> >>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&email_list=idr >> >>>>>>>>> &q >> >>>>>>>>> =% >> >>>>>>>>> 22 >> >>>>>>>>> %5 >> >>>>>>>>> Bidr%5D+%5Bv6ops%5D+BGP+Identifier%22&as=1&gbt=1 >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> And in the IDR meeting, minutes: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-idr >> >>>>>>>>> (see page 11) >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I’d encourage the authors of these drafts to work together >> >>>>>>>>> on >> >> this. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Wes George >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Anything below this line has been added by my company’s >> >>>>>>>>> mail >> >>>> server, >> >>>>>>>>> I have no control over it. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> ----------- >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time >> >>>>>>>>> Warner >> >>>> Cable >> >>>>>>>>> proprietary information, which is privileged, >>confidential, or >> >>>>>>>>> subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This >> >> E-mail is >> >>>>>>>>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity >>to which >> it >> >>>>>>>>> is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of >>this >> E-mail, >> >>>>>>>>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >>distribution, >> >>>>>>>>> copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of >>and >> >>>>>>>>> attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may >>be >> >>>>>>>>> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, >>please notify >> >>>>>>>>> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >>>> any >> >>>>>>>>> copy of this E-mail and any printout. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>>>> sunset4 mailing list >> >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4 >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Isis-wg mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Isis-wg mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
