Santanu,

On 3/30/15 15:53 , Santanu Kar wrote:
Hi Peter

Yeah, I understand that for updates of Ext Prefix LSA (when we are
adding/modifying/deleting Prefix TLVs) if we keep the Link ID (Type
number, Opaque ID/Instance) same, then by general OSPF rules we will
take only the latest LSA , and scenarios mentioned above will work
perfectly. When the link ID remains same, the working is very similar to
the router LSA.

My only concern is on the text which talks about different instances of
Ext Prefix LSA from same router.


If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in
    different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the same
    OSPF router, the OSPF advertising router is re-originating Extended
    Prefix Opaque LSAs for multiple prefixes and is most likely repacking
    Extended-Prefix-TLVs in Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs.  In this case,
    the Extended-Prefix-TLV in the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA with the
    smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers.  This
    situation MAY be logged as a warning.

What are the conditions on which a router will generate different instances (in 
effect different link IDs) of Ext Prefix LSA?

So if there are say 5 prefix TLVs to send, the router can choose to send
i) All in one LSA, or
ii)Send 2 TLVs in one instance and 3 in other, or may be even

iii) 5 LSAs each having one TLV  ?

any combination is allowed. Each prefix should only be present in a single LSA.

Temporarily, during repacking, same prefix may be present in multiple LSA, in which case the above paragraph applies.

thanks,
Peter


Regards

Santanu



On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Peter Psenak <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Santanu,

    On 3/30/15 09:07 , Santanu Kar wrote:


        Hi Peter

        Thanks for the clarification.

        I still do not completely agree that scenario (1) is a 'error or
        temporary condition'.

        Scenario A: Lets consider we have a network of routers and each
        router
        has 48 ports and OSPF routing enabled on all. We want to replace
        LDP in
        the network and have Prefix Segment based label  mappings for all
        prefixes in the network. So while configuring for the first
        time, each
        prefix with a prefix SID one by one, OSPF will send out 48 Ext
        Prefix
        LSAs. The first one will have only one Prefix TLV, the next one
        two, and


    more specifically, it will send 48 instances if the same LSA.

        subsequent ones keep adding the additional Prefix TLVs and repacking
        into the LSA. All the LSAs will keep having incremental
        instance. So the
        first prefix is advertised 48 times by the same router in
        different Ext
        Prefix LSAs.



    yes, what is wrong with the above? The exact same thing happens with
    Router LSA today. If you do not like it, your implementation can
    generate a dedicated Ext. Prefix LSA for each prefix. Both ways are
    allowed. But your implementation MUST be able to deal with the
    received Ext. Prefix LSAs that have multiple Ext Prefix TLVs.


        There are few more scenarios that needs to be considered for
        Multiple-Prefix TLV .Consider the following.
        Scenario B: Withdrawing of Prefix TLV. If on a particular router the
        prefix SID configured for one of its prefixes is unconfigured, the
        router needs to withdraw that specific Prefix TLV from the OSPF
        network.
        If this Prefix TLV was part of one or more LSA as described in
        scenario


    each prefix should be only advertised in a single Ext Prefix LSA...


        A, then all such LSAs needs to be withdrawn by issuing a LSA of
        MaxAge.
        Also since each LSA has multiple Prefix TLVs , all other
        Prefix-TLVs in
        that LSA will also get effected. This is undesirable. Even if
        there is
        no duplicate prefix TLVs across LSAs, this problem is applicable
        for the
        LSA which is withdrawn.


    what you described above is incorrect. When Ext Prefix LSA has
    multiple Ext Prefix TLVs and you want to remove one of them, you
    simply regenerate the Ext Prefix LSA without the Ext Prefix TLV that
    corresponds to that prefix and keep the rest of the Ext Prefix TLVs
    in the LSA - these prefixes are NOT affected.


        I propose the following solutions for this problem.
        i) The Ext Prefix LSA can have a fixed instance number
        associated with


    above is by definition - Instance (or Opaque-ID), is part of the
    LSID, which together with the Adv-Rtr-ID uniquely identifies the LSA
    itself.

        it. Whenever a prefix-TLV is received, as part of any Ext Prefix
        LSA, it
        needs to check for any modifications from the previous LSA. If
        none, it
        will ignore that prefix-TLV. Else it will be updated. In this
        way, even
        if a particular prefix-TLV is sent multiple times , and the
        latest one
        is considered as per the age of LSA, it will have no impact
        internally
        on the routes corresponding to that Prefix. Also it will
        significantly
        reduce the Link State Database to be maintained, and it will
        always be
        one per router. Any new prefix TLV in the new LSA will be added,
        and if
        any prefix TLV previously advertised is missing, will be removed.


    none of the above needs to be standardized. Base OSPF spec specifies
    that newer version of LSA replaces the old one. The way you deal
    with it is up to you. The only requirement is that you only use info
    that is in the latest version of the LSA.

        ii) The Ext Prefix LSA can allow only a single Top Level TLV per
        LSA.


    no, we want to have the flexibility in packing the single or
    multiple TLVs in the Ext Prefix LSA.

    regards,
    Peter



        Here announcing new Prefix and its withdraw can happen
        individually and
        will be a much simpler approach. This is similar to approach
        followed in
        OSPF TE (https://tools.ietf.org/html/__rfc3630#section-2.4
        <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.4>)

        Regards
        Santanu

        On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Peter Psenak <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:

             Hi Santanu,

             On 3/25/15 14:08 , Santanu Kar wrote:

                 Hi Authors

                 The Section 2, doesn't provide any clarification on the
                 'Instance' part
                 of the Link ID of
                 OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA.


             Instance is an arbitrary number to make each OSPFv2
        Extended Prefix
             Opaque LSA's LSID unique, please see RFC5250, section abut
        Opaque-ID.


                 There can be two possible implementations

                 1) When a Segment routing enabled router is advertising
        multiple Ext
                 Prefix TLV, it can keep repacking it into a single Ext
        Prefix
                 LSA, as
                 has been mentioned in end of section 2 and keep
        increasing the
                 instance
                 . The lowest instance is taken. Higher instance from
        same router for
                 same prefix is ignored.


             above only applies to the case where OSPFv2 Extended Prefix
        TLV is
             advertised for the _same_ prefix in multiple different OSPFv2
             Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs, which is either an error or
        temporary
             condition.



                 2) Another possible way is, not to go for this
        repacking. Instead it
                 should be possible to originate separate Ext Prefix
        LSAs for
                 every Ext
                 Prefix TLV, and only one TLV per LSA. The instance
        number or
                 Opaque id
                 can be derived from the prefix/interface so as to
        ensure its
                 unique for
                 every prefix originating from the same advertising router.


             yes above is correct, but the draft allows to pack multiple Ext
             Prefix TLVs in the single Extended Prefix Opaquer LSA if the
             implementation prefers to do so.


                 The draft is not clear on whether (2) can be allowed.
        It hasn't


             the draft says:

             Multiple OSPF Extended Prefix TLVs MAY be advertised in
        each OSPFv2
             Extended Prefix Opaque LSA."

             That means it can be one or more.


                 mentioned that the instance is topology independent and
                 dependent on how
                 we choose to implement it. The TE RFC however has a section
                 devoted to this
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/____rfc3630#section-2.2
        <https://tools.ietf.org/html/__rfc3630#section-2.2>
                 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/__rfc3630#section-2.2
        <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.2>>


             I can add a similar text to
        draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-____attr.


             thanks,
             Peter



                 Please give your thoughts on this.

                 Regards
                 Santanu






        --
        Best Regards
        Santanu Kar
        
------------------------------__------------------------------__------------------------------__----
        When you really want something to happen, the whole universe
        conspires so that your wish comes true
        
------------------------------__------------------------------__------------------------------__----





--
Best Regards
Santanu Kar
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you really want something to happen, the whole universe
conspires so that your wish comes true
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to