From nobody Fri Aug 1 10:55:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD251B2892; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:55:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BzT0YP9FXdCV; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67831A029F; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:55:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: ppsenak@cisco.com, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com, jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140801175542.9282.44706.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:55:42 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Zw190j7waq5W0bs2KlXntvoBLFE Cc: ospf@ietf.org, acee.lindem@ericsson.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [OSPF] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-01 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 17:55:44 -0000 Dear Peter Psenak, Stefano Previdi, Clarence Filsfils, Hannes Gredler, Rob Shakir, Wim Henderickx, Jeff Tantsura: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing" (draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2014-07-31 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2401/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-01.""); The IETF Secretariat From nobody Wed Aug 6 05:18:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33A51B29C0 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 05:18:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZjE6U_UG2cL5 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 05:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22d.google.com (mail-qg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51AF41A0188 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 05:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id f51so2548331qge.32 for ; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 05:18:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version; bh=QGLwm4qFMv5BazZaw1bY3a71X5W1HjUpU1ImqkSCdWE=; b=r/Cl16ZK7qdj2JN5I4KWcz2J2wJ9ydfDBv/5OiMtXBXbG7Z6kkrF+3nSxlk2QH3w7D R8EUK0ujxQyZdz8+fMvFjgJGkZB3No+yU8bgGU43QahUk9tW4hn0B5zeO7LwgCqmP89n tWzee0IPrhLmRSylCFRaWbb2E/5tvyTbDgKlYYXzlY57h4NyLf1C/NumzA+y1/3Vr6G+ JzMlvjZ3e/1yyK5aOBP7gh5fPf2BdlaC67QSJgeQ5fZkJOB+ZRnzWIO5/6Zkg87hr3J4 nTM2eT5jYbPtEX9PBos6GMxmXo2FKMj4qmyzBOyZQpS6tSM4D2ZGu166VqttHDiCOl3d UT9w== X-Received: by 10.224.93.11 with SMTP id t11mr16384055qam.102.1407327531513; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 05:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.8] (pool-173-79-6-58.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [173.79.6.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w38sm835022qgd.17.2014.08.06.05.18.50 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Aug 2014 05:18:50 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 08:18:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4E5F24DE-DAA5-46F8-8130-B3EAF1ACAA2F@gmail.com> To: ospf@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Zbu75OD9n6z7uQouq4mZQVieQes Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3? X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:18:54 -0000 All, With apologies for my tardy reply, I also support this work. It is optional to implement or deploy, but it can be very useful as a way to minimise enterprise network operational costs and also to facilitate a smoother transition to dual-stack operation - and eventual IPv6-only operation. The use case described in the I-D is the one that arose from my clients and that motivated me to talk with Acee, Joel, and others about the operational value of being able to deploy OSPFv3 over IPv4 - as part of an operating cost reduction and IPv6 transition plan. Yours, Ran Atkinson (Consultant) From nobody Wed Aug 13 06:13:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690881A0126 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:13:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jph8L9-8HMqF for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46AFD1A00A8 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:13:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1734; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407935586; x=1409145186; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=sSaDnCdvoguWZ1JXaTatEdBNHhdmYFho7DY23npATWg=; b=Vay90iSJyoG+C2wZEvQsLukJ4x90OBpYhZ+X5CBHpH4vfLS8C42+E73S tN+WeuCn/qJQ46VSuOp0IFk5tSo7O98E5kmQCGjITR4WIZM8SNV9dporl RpehrM3gQTxGrI+CNoIlW4fCBvkDX1zNCWhwfFSgLmzVR8/018pd3+fgo M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAPpj61OtJA2I/2dsb2JhbABagw1SVwTNKYdGAYETFneEBAEBBDo9EgIBCDYQMhsBBgMCBBMJiDkNxikXj1OETAWRHYQmhnaBV5Mng1xsAYFH X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,857,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="68847583" Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2014 13:12:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7DDCsRk024541 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:12:54 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:12:53 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHPtlGQNLZvkWuqU0uFf/90h1EvfZvOlLMA Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:12:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140812171918.31632.25544.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140812171918.31632.25544.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.195] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3D1E5E2B92657E46B9045018EE6F9E6A@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/znL1TcHX5towIO4JJ83KONN9y4A Subject: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-00.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:13:56 -0000 Hi,=20 This new draft describes the generic prefix/link attribute opaque LSAs that were previously included in the OSPFv2 Segment Routing draft. The opaque LSAs described in this draft can be used by other OSPF WG candidate drafts. There are already two implementations of the draft as part of segment routing interoperability testing. Please read and comment. Thanks, Acee=20 On 8/12/14, 1:19 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: > >A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-00.txt >has been successfully submitted by Acee Lindem and posted to the >IETF repository. > >Name: draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr >Revision: 00 >Title: OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement >Document date: 2014-08-12 >Group: ospf >Pages: 13 >URL: =20 >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-00.tx >t >Status: =20 >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr/ >Htmlized: =20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-00 > > >Abstract: > OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done > with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described > in RFC 2328. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based on Type- > Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate additional > attributes with advertised prefixes or links. The OSPF opaque LSAs > are optional and fully backward compatible. > > =20 > =20 > > >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 > From nobody Mon Aug 25 11:43:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7001A02BA for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.27 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fdqsJmZzuHTy for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D961A0242 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:42:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=336; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408992178; x=1410201778; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=O4+Rqr+OHFgpLT6tMs7ZxP4Q5ns87VxrZLxIKHxxz78=; b=VvSmeXolj/SaWhQ4cdrZoUG1CZwGl0Ygs/vpzmHMtGarBZ/eE/hX0nD5 6BEOaQvEAQGKAYyg5lWAsHw0/DxrP63s0A0fBfqTN4pOSxxWtPzwuC3+P oiazBYh0KAVaOrR8A5r4MaA8FCGOPJZvXhhv8fVyxrcFITDmuR6nGHCgi 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiALAGaC+1OtJV2S/2dsb2JhbABagw2wWQEBAQEFAQVpAaN1AQGBKxZ3hEJAPRYYAwIBAgFLDQgBAYg+m2CkExeFfIhuEQGFIwEEiyKRJ4cvjV2CGIFmHYE+gUABAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,398,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="350093459" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2014 18:42:57 +0000 Received: from [10.154.213.44] ([10.154.213.44]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7PIgvDE002779 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:42:57 GMT Message-ID: <53FB83B7.2010201@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:43:03 -0700 From: Abhay Roy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ospf@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/SId_yzIz7myqcLg_zSolDPFe2Io Subject: [OSPF] Working Group last call on "OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration" - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-07.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:43:00 -0000 All, We are starting a working group last call on the subject document. Draft has been stable for a while, and only recent change was one of the author's email address ;-). WGLC will end at Noon PST on 8th Sept 2014. Please review the document and send any final comments prior to the WGLC deadline. Regards, -Abhay From nobody Mon Aug 25 11:57:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BD11A02F7 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:57:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYVrgbe5szDI for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2816A1A02F4 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:57:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1854; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408993043; x=1410202643; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject; bh=MwakGJil5TeiaEsuUPMJhcervjH+aLkWWqJpdfGj3tY=; b=QyPfqSJ8YF6htB7MsjWfDj62XTEKSrEhxE0XgwT4fuOk/OINN7OJIyZ9 Hk3ZXsFTaC/xYAUJr/AGcNZoASUkhFAWIG677gMHmOx0M2Mq62ynVfvsn fva2jBdNQUwnj+9SoRZmtx/y4WO4FwwvGVcYMATWEX96UxjbDdmdB8C1Q U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhULAIyG+1OtJV2T/2dsb2JhbABagw2wWQEBAQEFAW4BpSMWd4N6gQgfAR0WGAMCAQIBSwEMCAEBiD6/fxeFfIh5hSoFiyKRJ4cvjV2Dfh2BNoFIAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,398,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="350206674" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2014 18:57:22 +0000 Received: from [10.154.213.44] ([10.154.213.44]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7PIvMPY031821; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:57:22 GMT Message-ID: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:57:28 -0700 From: Abhay Roy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org, "ospf@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040807090906010509020804" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/V6UdYMx5jsyUpfhYQMUUI7r5l2Y Subject: [OSPF] Comments on draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:57:24 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040807090906010509020804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [speaking as WG member] Two comments.. 1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.". I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's 2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that? Regards, -Abhay --------------040807090906010509020804 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay
--------------040807090906010509020804-- From nobody Mon Aug 25 12:04:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367421A026F for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OhKEn5M94w1a for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A10221A0222 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408993471; x=1410203071; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gIUN2QDc7Fl8ar31+aSvrbeDdGLBwN6debCoirzbmc0=; b=WHMV3jYRxG5hPG4rUxglEk5sbh6JavV6mIOW4uW3uuK0aD5Pq6n5xqOY lRBA+ffJNtTLZ+/YWMU047isSO4lrf/P8D2ji5uZvGbxCg5wA3RC8kClf YtoiWEwHgS6RVk8kXjZrCou6EAJlEI64h1GUgV67FKdg5+J06vnjTUZh6 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjsLAL6H+1OtJV2U/2dsb2JhbABagw1TV68vAQEBAQUBbgGcKAqHTQGBIxZ3hAQBAQQBAQE1NgoRCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEVMAYNBgIBAYg+Db9zEwSFfIlXhEwBBIsiii2GeocvjV2Dfh0vgk8BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,398,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="72193704" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2014 19:04:31 +0000 Received: from [10.154.213.44] ([10.154.213.44]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7PJ4UCp018797 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:04:30 GMT Message-ID: <53FB88C5.4010008@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:04:37 -0700 From: Abhay Roy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ospf@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/6GPwJ_I1x2n9Jc6hT-A4z0gHD3w Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3? X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:04:33 -0000 We have strong support from all the authors to accept this work ;-) Can a few non-authors also chime in with their thoughts/support? Speaking as a WG member, I support this work because it also fixes the Virtual Link limitation we left unsupported in RFC5838 for IPv4 Unicast AF. Regards, -Abhay On 7/22/14, 5:53 PM, Ing-Wher Chen wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to ask if the working group would adopt and help improve and refine > the following draft: > > > > This document describes a mechanism to transport OSPfv3 over IPv4. > The mechanism allows devices to migrate to OSPFv3 first, which would help > with transition to IPv6 later. > > The latest -01 version addresses an earlier question by including > an IPv4-only use case in which deployed devices cannot communicate > in IPv6 but would benefit from using the mechanism proposed in this draft > to transition to OSPFv3 for now. Until all devices can communicate using IPv6, > consolidating to OSPFv3 can still reduce operational complexity and cost. > > Thanks, > Helen > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From nobody Mon Aug 25 12:08:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCB31A02CB for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eK-rzJMNgNZu for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 564DA1A0222 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:08:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3115; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408993708; x=1410203308; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=QRp9HfkA2dXPJ5WjTBenKa1Dfvla3cejCqV0djmv+f8=; b=RcgRlp7JT4hF5ZkA5e/dISpnRIBoUBw4bihTwsDwF6SLpefwIqBk6VgL dgs7eGrD/yFinu9XBtK87l4EqJadJNfIfwTUEI3ckrCjFo587kPBnJ2F/ doSJGeA3jBkjEWy6lbdvDq3T+Z4Ocdb7cUbiVxF/A7uAIfs5m0oNuMkvY o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj0LACGJ+1OtJV2S/2dsb2JhbABagw1TV68vAQEBAQUBbgGcKAEJh00BgSMWd4QEAQEEAQEBawoRDxQJFg8JAwIBAgEVMAYNBgIBAYg+Db93EwSFfIh5XoRMBYsikSeHL41dg34dL4EHgUgBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,398,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="350098914" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2014 19:08:26 +0000 Received: from [10.154.213.44] ([10.154.213.44]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7PJ8PVt027744 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:08:26 GMT Message-ID: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:08:32 -0700 From: Abhay Roy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ospf@ietf.org" References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060602090905090707080006" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/RRG0a67QArUOTb_eg4p0muUX1IQ Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:08:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060602090905090707080006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it.. Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. Regards, -Abhay On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote: > [speaking as WG member] > > Two comments.. > > 1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.". > I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for > IPv4 AF's > > 2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I > personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or > Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for > those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this > document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that? > > Regards, > -Abhay > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --------------060602090905090707080006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it..

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.

Regards,
-Abhay

On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay


_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

--------------060602090905090707080006-- From nobody Mon Aug 25 14:18:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8271A036D for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GE6EKmHW7xKw for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E96C1A0320 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1316; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409001491; x=1410211091; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=pWpPUhP6Ueq/cTsaSeUw3mYqNYagP91l4ghfLXvhvZM=; b=U5pTQHYDOX8vQ6b6So1n3kS0dvcZaJi30VTsAvEE6XQel5nPu8Ha4mJy A+ps9XpextT6kE6rFEtTbn0xLYeSPY4IOfIVRGE46Rdf6UxOU2HaSZoVg 18GnNi0wmXUylHGoTsI/2YN5oQGae+JYac9Sf0Oq6OTKH00a1NSzRf6EW E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFAOam+1OtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagkdGgS7VQhZ3g3oQgQsBCwF0JwSIVZtkpDcXlB8FkSaLI5UMg16CNIEHAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,398,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="72233712" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2014 21:18:11 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7PLIA0t022601 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:18:10 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:18:10 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GA== Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:18:09 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D02120512116aceeciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Hew_MhJjrLoy_xqE5HR1Rlgdvj8 Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:18:14 -0000 --_000_D02120512116aceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF advert= ised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of remote-LFA el= igibility. Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP= F WG document. Thanks, Acee --_000_D02120512116aceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <155F3B254D10244798841594FC882BAC@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF a= dvertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of remote-L= FA eligibility.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as a= n OSPF WG document. 

Thanks,
Acee 
--_000_D02120512116aceeciscocom_-- From nobody Mon Aug 25 14:18:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1904C1A037E for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30hpt_LbeXBY for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3E71A0379 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linne.localnet (31.150.3.83) by linfreserv.linfre (Axigen) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 125D5E; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:18:23 +0200 From: Karsten Thomann To: ospf@ietf.org Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:21:08 +0200 Message-ID: <234836831.19CZc6qLhu@linne> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.4 (Windows/6.1; KDE/4.10.4; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com> References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart1538080.SMMbQ5fZYc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records DomainKey-Status: no signature X-AxigenSpam-Level: 6 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/kwugi63Q_lZSz0gBBCATx7sySm0 Cc: draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:18:37 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --nextPart1538080.SMMbQ5fZYc Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" About your comments: 1. I've raised that question already june 8th onlist, but the discussion ended off list waiting for an answer from a co-author 2. Will check it tomorrow with some more time I support making it a WG document, but would also like to get 1. clarified before WG adoption, but thats up to the WG consensus Regards Karsten Am Montag, 25. August 2014, 12:08:32 schrieb Abhay Roy: This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it.. Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. Regards,-Abhay On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote: [speaking as WG member] Two comments.. 1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.". I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's 2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that? Regards,-Abhay _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org[1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf[2] -------- [1] mailto:OSPF@ietf.org [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf --nextPart1538080.SMMbQ5fZYc Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

Abo= ut your comments:

1. = I've raised that question already june 8th onlist, but the discussion e= nded off list waiting for an answer from a co-author

 

2. = Will check it tomorrow with some more time

 

I s= upport making it a WG document, but would also like to get 1. clarified= before WG adoption, but thats up to the WG consensus

 

Reg= ards

Kar= sten

 

Am = Montag, 25. August 2014, 12:08:32 schrieb Abhay Roy:

This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) re= quiring it..

Please share your support or objections in mak= ing it a WG document.

Regards,
-Abhay

O= n 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:

[sp= eaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 = has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.". =A0=A0=A0 I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e.= for IPv4 AF's

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SH= OULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real use cause of any l= essor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routabl= e IP address for those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the = scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any conce= rns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay


_________________=
______________________________
OSPF mailing list<=
/span>
OSPF@ietf.org=

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf 
<=
/pre>



--nextPart1538080.SMMbQ5fZYc--


From nobody Mon Aug 25 14:30:39 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9ECF1A03AA for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.168
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YKW-mEOlk_tP for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E3BA1A03A0 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1528; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409002229; x=1410211829; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=uI4ghLigUgM88X9uYxKC9fc1YGjrZvOQWXt2xLn7Ipk=; b=aqJb++GlsqeTezx+tawxYWpZXSWg7N9IEn5YA+fddIp2L7vY8oH0clk8 oKHbePVCxoAZPYTJj1UQDkL5+eROUz5l2+LHkUgFzG18muEhqSbdTUARW BqvHg/xrLStGchpCG8ryz96FIN9cMwOwpfElW1G9xONfQ5KKbWy+XoMhn s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoHAGiq+1OtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABagkdGU1gDslGYIoFjiGwWd4N6EIELAQsBdCcEiFUNm0KkOxeUHwWRJoQphnqBWJM0g16CNIEHAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,398,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="72235847"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2014 21:30:28 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7PLUSXx019852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:30:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:30:28 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
To: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwKvK3WdFT8K/dkCarFJ74ODeow==
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:30:28 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D02123332128aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/9BGjkmuQ1wZ4WdYKUTsGquJeYzw
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:30:37 -0000

--_000_D02123332128aceeciscocom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents =
 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement o=
f the global S-BFD discriminators.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.
Thanks,
Acee

--_000_D02123332128aceeciscocom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <49E8A3BB317AD045B1E0B177871F1201@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG docum=
ents  - =
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/


Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisem=
ent of the global S-BFD discriminators. 







Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as a=
n OSPF WG document. 


Thanks,


Acee




--_000_D02123332128aceeciscocom_--


From nobody Mon Aug 25 14:57:35 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93181A03C6 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GZlOeitha3fd for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0209.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.209]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2401A03C0 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2PR05MB080.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.17) by BY2PR05MB629.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.218.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:57:22 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.16) by BY2PR05MB080.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.17; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:57:20 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.48]) by BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.178]) with mapi id 15.00.1015.017; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:57:20 +0000
From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , Ing-Wher Chen , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
Thread-Index: AQHPrPG0r2Xjo/vo/kmaNReoSY53wJviBQ7Q
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:57:19 +0000
Message-ID: <784545c5caf4452cb2bdfc70fff2418d@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 03142412E2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(479174003)(13464003)(189002)(24454002)(199003)(51704005)(377454003)(164054003)(81542001)(106356001)(83072002)(66066001)(230783001)(76482001)(80022001)(101416001)(74316001)(20776003)(2656002)(77096002)(99396002)(50986999)(64706001)(76576001)(54356999)(46102001)(92566001)(76176999)(19580395003)(19580405001)(33646002)(105586002)(108616004)(95666004)(85306004)(107046002)(83322001)(74502001)(85852003)(107886001)(79102001)(21056001)(77982001)(106116001)(74662001)(90102001)(81342001)(99286002)(15975445006)(86362001)(31966008)(87936001)(4396001)(2501001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB080; H:BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/gYT7RPB8nDQRUon8DMbqZElv4nU
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:57:34 -0000

I read the draft and support its adoption.

Jeffrey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:39 PM
> To: Ing-Wher Chen; ospf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
>=20
> Hi Helen,
> As an author, I would certainly support this work. I think it is clearly
> in the OSPF WG=B9s best interest to facilitate migration to a single
> version. When that happens will be dependent on numerous factors
> including
> requirements, deployments, and how well we facilitate it.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>=20
> On 7/22/14, 8:53 PM, "Ing-Wher Chen"  wrote:
>=20
> >Hello,
> >
> >I'd like to ask if the working group would adopt and help improve and
> >refine
> >the following draft:
> >
> >
> >
> >This document describes a mechanism to transport OSPfv3 over IPv4.
> >The mechanism allows devices to migrate to OSPFv3 first, which would
> help
> >with transition to IPv6 later.
> >
> >The latest -01 version addresses an earlier question by including
> >an IPv4-only use case in which deployed devices cannot communicate
> >in IPv6 but would benefit from using the mechanism proposed in this
> draft
> >to transition to OSPFv3 for now.  Until all devices can communicate
> using
> >IPv6,
> >consolidating to OSPFv3 can still reduce operational complexity and
> cost.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Helen
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OSPF mailing list
> >OSPF@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>=20


From nobody Mon Aug 25 15:29:26 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A571A03CA for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OIa9oXzZJ1-2 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0183.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB2E61A03AC for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hannes-mba.local (66.129.239.14) by DM2PR05MB447.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.104.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:29:20 +0000
Received: from juniper.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by hannes-mba.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187562557AB; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:29:09 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:29:08 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
Message-ID: <20140825222908.GA3172@juniper.net>
References: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Originating-IP: [66.129.239.14]
X-ClientProxiedBy: CO2PR06CA020.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.242.20) To DM2PR05MB447.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.104.150)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 03142412E2
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(164054003)(24454002)(189002)(199003)(74662001)(74502001)(47776003)(99396002)(4396001)(20776003)(66066001)(86362001)(76482001)(87976001)(64706001)(36756003)(15975445006)(97756001)(92566001)(19580395003)(23726002)(83322001)(19580405001)(81542001)(50986999)(76176999)(81342001)(50466002)(83506001)(21056001)(83072002)(80022001)(92726001)(76506005)(101416001)(33656002)(85306004)(77096002)(95666004)(46406003)(77982001)(54356999)(106356001)(102836001)(79102001)(105586002)(31966008)(90102001)(46102001)(230783001)(107046002)(85852003)(110136001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB447; H:hannes-mba.local; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; 
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/1egrA2Caag2YfDK2kXP5aVOWiXU
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:29:25 -0000

support (as an author :-)) - 

note that in the latest version we have added also added a use-case
example for building auto-LSP-meshes  ...

/hannes

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 09:18:09PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
|    There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
|    advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
|    remote-LFA eligibility.
|    Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
|    OSPF WG document.
|    Thanks,
|    Acee

| _______________________________________________
| OSPF mailing list
| OSPF@ietf.org
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Mon Aug 25 18:40:23 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD7C1A064C for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.168
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17pyQafG-ntA for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 600571A064E for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3848; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409017218; x=1410226818; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=hTUsR9HxSH0cUxL+TxvForugZ2z+1oEHX2QfdZzaHpc=; b=g3XZfCEctGs+H0XMFgxOXlC47ijirw1OlR7k/IZPxO9ucN1YDTZ/vTUU Eb+ua5yXfC3B+CxjmigEhdcH/BFH14N4brPzRteT21dk+bMmFhCWCe3ic lBeYI854XeQZkN8hguxMg1TE9YI+TNdsXUTZtTCJR772D9OxhY4DizpvH k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEFABHk+1OtJA2L/2dsb2JhbABZgkcjI1NXBLJCmCKBY4dNgRwWd4QDAQIEgQsBCAQNAwECKDkUCQoEARKIQgEMvycXjzuEZAWPE4IThCmGeoFYkzSDXmyBSIEHAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,400,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="72287680"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 01:40:17 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7Q1eG5d004045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:40:16 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:40:16 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwM6vdrgYNvotfUO3ZYF2lhzn9g==
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:40:15 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
x-originating-ip: [10.82.229.69]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0215AB765897cpignataciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ojZI1PrThAkFDBry6YKDg0TeGH4
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:40:20 -0000

--_000_D0215AB765897cpignataciscocom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Acee,

I support (as a co-author) the adoption of this document as an OSPF WG item=
.

Given that the BFD WG adopted the S-BFD base and use case documents, I also=
 believe it important for OSPF to support the S-BFD discriminators advertis=
ement.

Specifically, Section 3 of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-03 mentions this us=
e for OSPF/IS-IS.

Thanks,

Carlos.

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" >
Date: Monday, August 25, 2014 at 5:30 PM
To: "ospf@ietf.org" >
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminato=
r

The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents =
 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement o=
f the global S-BFD discriminators.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.
Thanks,
Acee

--_000_D0215AB765897cpignataciscocom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







Acee,







I support (as a co-author) the adoption of this document as an OSPF WG=
 item.







Given that the BFD WG adopted the S-BFD base and use case documents, I=
 also believe it important for OSPF to support the S-BFD discriminators adv=
ertisement.







Specifically, Section 3 of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-03 mentio=
ns this use for OSPF/IS-IS.







Thanks,







Carlos.









From: "Acee Lindem (acee)"=
; <acee@cisco.com>

Date: Monday, August 25, 2014 at 5:=
30 PM

To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@i=
etf.org>

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoptio=
n of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator













The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG docum=
ents  - =
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/


Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisem=
ent of the global S-BFD discriminators. 







Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as a=
n OSPF WG document. 


Thanks,


Acee









--_000_D0215AB765897cpignataciscocom_--


From nobody Mon Aug 25 20:59:20 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4651A0707 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ecHHm3KNte5L for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDF0A1A06C4 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x69so10299143oia.20 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4YSqn2dS7mRrTcD+eFCZ/RYOoDV4cQSkW1+xmTwFWtc=; b=LVFmUJUZ/vdp4wLBph4BzkP6ulsuzK/lI952j+dp2CuMqaifCy8kuWGkv6NLNJZZZm 6SVtKHjtriaJJ2cF9VUyL6ndEL8YCI95vE/bgbvX9FbtB+uX/8YboAqXn/ex0DPySU8y gze6QML+FD4Y5r1rRpJcC4MHU/73cW+IR8ZcgZnPHsvAwT6/VTdmSj4zgn6jkiTWaWei HX+v7M7dRWUnRIAXZrsRC7Ndcued14rIOh/hLvv0nudf/koKPeUTyJrfGfPBvcJ5bFDH Ed7kG2J1nQyoqQwtQABemV98fckBJAtjVOltskfy1g4Bfd58+8eAPomYt24Lq09i+qx9 SSBA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.112.134 with SMTP id iq6mr24683970obb.34.1409025556319;  Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.154.100 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:29:16 +0530
Message-ID: 
From: Manav Bhatia 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Vwlgx_HegEVesaEzQmXXLEcCY10
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:59:19 -0000

I think its a great draft and should be accepted as a WG document! :-)

Cheers, Manav

P.S.
BTW, i also happen to be the co-author of this draft -- just in case
somebody wants to know.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:
> The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents
> - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
> Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement of
> the global S-BFD discriminators.
>
> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF
> WG document.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>


From nobody Mon Aug 25 21:01:11 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4750E1A0714 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id naTFUdm5qqCy for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9EAC1A070B for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v63so1375013oia.7 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tRKv2rUNyFFZLJ1TwILjlSAK50enoY7L5KebUOMDd1c=; b=LmWcx61NyxT9Qt+VJ/XrRuZQopmV/S6x16ADEF6fhrLhEyQKQxwi4cDynpFA/HGaB5 20GJbdSpOgL5DIldt6kWHNNLc5htf1GYJk6ybdeoIlJdsIXmtw8DBX9IbnUpMTwRC6gt Nbz9d/AjXHSDt8TIgTt+rF9S+SWUrhguHah8DNP0hby+o9tJ9rRZbpJ+i0QZBku3irta MoWW2A7vUafGujyeu3Z1c8vIq11bRctTQYCj7oowg0H8iMMlqn4Acfcmo5165gJrRme+ AjGwxo9pq3v0zTGBRqxno0Ru7/QfeKOlnfuCXDl+RgR76VGCRZQCYrrLt7LkLkBilOcJ CFSQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.133.103 with SMTP id pb7mr16931189oeb.48.1409025666320; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.154.100 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:31:06 +0530
Message-ID: 
From: Manav Bhatia 
To: Abhay Roy 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/WkwBmddhZAIPPyJ3cgBmIewkIYk
Cc: draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org, "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Comments on draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:01:09 -0000

Hi Abhay,

Thanks for the review. We'll update the draft with these comments in
the next revision.

Can we request the chairs to poll the WG for accepting this as a WG doc?

Cheers, Manav

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Abhay Roy  wrote:
> [speaking as WG member]
>
> Two comments..
>
> 1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
>     I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's
>
> 2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I
> personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link)
> since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes
> already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST
> be domain-wide". Any concerns with that?
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>


From nobody Mon Aug 25 21:02:52 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0EC71A0707 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mLjjZ_2sWQ8W for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x236.google.com (mail-oa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F4891A070F for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n16so11413743oag.13 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DYyOVReS500kK+go9SlNslyLRC8jmU8oS+bhCrBUrzQ=; b=VizwPdfq2EnHAlkzd7UDVU8qax2qSbZVKT/xjI3b7EE56l4msBf8KhlQv9bu6uMQu+ poWt27UPp8/dPEn1ZRA80x1ZBElaLU2XOm4I9ZVFaM735WYzrQx0F5hBtEJcskiufsZ/ BU7yjNno6lKX2Sk/Ddl9D8hUmwA0lV3cFVVzE1H2NjBMc1/n7Ux58d3XhQ2mJzRAm58q D/tQc83ufQLNFrB1Lt+iEfWnL0Md/dwJnhsvAymEVWSBEq0S09DAye99dKa6SMti7utS Oxmfk2bBifn5CsmnwdqI3PxUTnbdZ9jccNViMvSPaZl07t4nmskdHG/jLnV4d+45gC7J pXmw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.52.208 with SMTP id v16mr24304760oeo.15.1409025768677; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.154.100 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:32:48 +0530
Message-ID: 
From: Manav Bhatia 
To: Abhay Roy 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/L299xQNDin9HuK87hVwjS2wNLCY
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:02:51 -0000

I see that a poll has already been issued.

Yes, i support this to be taken up as a WG document ! :-)

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Abhay Roy  wrote:
> This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD)
> requiring it..
>
> Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
> On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
>
> [speaking as WG member]
>
> Two comments..
>
> 1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
>     I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's
>
> 2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I
> personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link)
> since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes
> already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST
> be domain-wide". Any concerns with that?
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>


From nobody Tue Aug 26 00:03:39 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06AA21A0A92 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jrsy_u-o0Uf6 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A65E11A0864 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-46-53fbda256913
Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F2.E9.25146.52ADBF35; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:51:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:03:30 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri 
To: Karsten Thomann , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJf53JQiCi1AXEC/xTWZo3ZpdpviFtYAgABewBA=
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:03:30 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36243B@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com> <234836831.19CZc6qLhu@linne>
In-Reply-To: <234836831.19CZc6qLhu@linne>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36243Beusaamb105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonQVf11u9gg9a/+hbPD/FabLl1lMmi 5d49dgdmjyVLfjJ5PDx4iN3jy+XPbAHMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZ85c0shZsqq54f9CugfFC XhcjJ4eEgInE7PaV7BC2mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEjjJK/No6FcpZzijR3rIXrIpNQE/i49SfYLaI QJDEpm9HWEBsZoFsiZb5K8BsYQFfid2brzNC1ARIPD98Hsq2krhz7hUriM0ioCqx6sY0sDm8 QPXf1nSBxYUEUiTu/14BFucU0JS4fn4KM4jNCHTd91NrmCB2iUvcejKfCeJqAYkle84zQ9ii Ei8f/2OFsJUkJi09xwpRny/xYm8DK8QuQYmTM5+wTGAUnYVk1CwkZbOQlEHEdSQW7P7EBmFr Syxb+JoZxj5z4DETsvgCRvZVjBylxalluelGhpsYgXF2TILNcQfjgk+WhxgFOBiVeHgVOH8H C7EmlhVX5h5ilOZgURLn1ayeFywkkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBcdXW577cefu1 Upf9XL1H78LFSxntKmfTJ20Xej7rg2omw+HZ3uUuEyZ/c+Ct2CSWKj5xlr98POe1X3+SV7k3 sHJcsjEyabi3Ik0gc4Zr/lZRmYywoHjWCbLTfK+olfw5bt9f/n/ixLp9T2/nzS+qTPjmrmbi J+lgKPzD6+j+fdoXzZd09v9XV2Ipzkg01GIuKk4EAGxSPrSUAgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/mUtK8rii8VT-9l2GlNP16Zh9OTA
Cc: "draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:03:37 -0000

--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36243Beusaamb105erics_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear  Abhay, Karsten,

Thanks for the comments.


My quick answers:
For -

1.       As Karsten said we discussed this offline and agreed that it's app=
licable to IPv4 AFs possible through RFC 5838. Thx.

2.       Agree. We will correct this.

--
Uma C.

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karsten Thomann
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:21 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Cc: draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-addre=
ss


About your comments:

1. I've raised that question already june 8th onlist, but the discussion en=
ded off list waiting for an answer from a co-author



2. Will check it tomorrow with some more time



I support making it a WG document, but would also like to get 1. clarified =
before WG adoption, but thats up to the WG consensus



Regards

Karsten



Am Montag, 25. August 2014, 12:08:32 schrieb Abhay Roy:

This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiri=
ng it..

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.

Regards,
-Abhay

On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:

[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF'=
s

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domai=
n-wide". Any concerns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay


_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list

OSPF@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf



--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36243Beusaamb105erics_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Dear  Abhay, Karsten=
,


 <=
/p>

Thanks for the comments.<=
o:p>


 <=
/p>

 <=
/p>

My quick answers:


For -

1. =
;     
As Karsten said w=
e discussed this offline and agreed that it’s applicable to IPv4 AFs =
possible through RFC 5838. Thx.


2. =
;     
Agree. We will co=
rrect this.


 <=
/p>



--


Uma C.<=
/p>



 <=
/p>





From: OSPF [ma=
ilto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Karsten Thomann

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:21 PM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Cc: draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address@tools.ietf.org

Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-i=
p-address






 


About your comment=
s:


1. I've raised that question already june 8th onlist, but=
 the discussion ended off list waiting for an answer from
 a co-author



 


2. Will check it tomorrow with some more time<=
/span>



 


I support making it a WG document, but would also like to=
 get 1. clarified before WG adoption, but thats up to the
 WG consensus



 


Regards


Karsten



 


Am Montag, 25. August 2014, 12:08:32 schrieb Abhay Roy:



This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-B=
FD) requiring it..




Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. 



Regards,

-Abhay



On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:



[speaking as WG member]



Two comments..



1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.&q=
uot;. 

    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.=
e. for IPv4 AF's 



2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the
 scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns=
 with that? 



Regards,

-Abhay






_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list


OSPF@ietf.org<=
/pre>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi=
nfo/ospf 



 






--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36243Beusaamb105erics_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 00:05:47 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED981A0AD0 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mwAWMCpfVesk for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62B7D1A093B for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-88-53fbdd12cb4b
Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2F.C6.05330.21DDBF35; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:04:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:05:40 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri 
To: Abhay Roy , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
Thread-Index: Ac+mD1WqrJdjlPOzRKKgH+V1PVvBIwaqZuGAABDFClA=
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:05:39 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F362451@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References:  <53FB88C5.4010008@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FB88C5.4010008@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt67Q3d/BBnNmyVkcPjiLzaLl3j12 ByaPKb83snosWfKTKYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvjzPkepoIjvBWfJ/9hbGDs5+5i5OSQEDCR mP5gJQuELSZx4d56ti5GLg4hgaOMErMfb2aGcJYzSsw4eoMJpIpNQE/i49Sf7CC2iICdxJpZ DWBxYQF3iaePtzBBxD0kbnybzAZhW0lMuf+TtYuRg4NFQFVi62RJkDCvgK/EuZ3nwUqEBLIk LvSeZASxOQU0JSa9WcsKYjMCHfT91BqwkcwC4hK3nsxngjhUQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH/1ghbCWJ SUvPsULU60gs2P2JDcLWlli28DUzxF5BiZMzn7BMYBSdhWTsLCQts5C0zELSsoCRZRUjR2lx alluupHBJkZgNByTYNPdwbjnpeUhRgEORiUe3gTH38FCrIllxZW5hxilOViUxHln1c4LFhJI TyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cA4TbCkW3KijvGqR+blXhfed39+XG1cwvNzF0uItuSM M+0101cvXll9s3dlUqy3VvuEs5nJlSGNah+kebKMKhKP9szZnJzRNef39beNL7znzV7TeFhB uPDH6qcb3t75685np73vcfj5kIayTx8OpUk1NU58+P5B96LrZ17G5P2VFuGblHoy89IdJZbi jERDLeai4kQA8WHHRGcCAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/wE6D1IWtkvYEOlYsXr3RPWwWih4
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:05:45 -0000

Dear Chairs,

I support this and it's useful.

--
Uma C.


-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abhay Roy
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:05 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?

We have strong support from all the authors to accept this work ;-)

Can a few non-authors also chime in with their thoughts/support?

Speaking as a WG member, I support this work because it also fixes the Virt=
ual Link limitation we left unsupported in RFC5838 for IPv4 Unicast AF.

Regards,
-Abhay

On 7/22/14, 5:53 PM, Ing-Wher Chen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to ask if the working group would adopt and help improve and=20
> refine the following draft:
>
>  />
>
> This document describes a mechanism to transport OSPfv3 over IPv4.
> The mechanism allows devices to migrate to OSPFv3 first, which would=20
> help with transition to IPv6 later.
>
> The latest -01 version addresses an earlier question by including an=20
> IPv4-only use case in which deployed devices cannot communicate in=20
> IPv6 but would benefit from using the mechanism proposed in this draft=20
> to transition to OSPFv3 for now.  Until all devices can communicate=20
> using IPv6, consolidating to OSPFv3 can still reduce operational complexi=
ty and cost.
>
> Thanks,
> Helen
>  =20
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Tue Aug 26 00:08:42 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1051A093B for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U5eGqkX0VHY5 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B01FC1A0977 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-7f-53fbdb5425d1
Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9B.F9.25146.45BDBF35; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:56:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:08:34 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvidwXg
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:08:34 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F362465@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F362465eusaamb105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrDLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuG7I7d/BBrOfGVlMfjuP2aLl3j12 ByaPKb83snosWfKTKYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStje9sttoKL2hUL3mU2MM5R72Lk5JAQMJF4 0/6BHcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAUUaJf50z2SGc5YwSd+bsYQapYhPQk/g49SdYh4iAl8SNiU1g trCAi8Thr61MEHFXiTUX1jBC2EYSu7v/gtWwCKhKbPszkwXE5hXwlXhw4gtYjZCAlsSWV0vZ QGxOAW2JG5OPg9mMQBd9P7UGbCazgLjErSfzmSAuFZBYsuc8M4QtKvHy8T9WCFtJYtLSc6wQ 9fkSF198YoXYJShxcuYTlgmMIrOQjJqFpGwWkjKIuI7Egt2f2CBsbYllC18zw9hnDjxmQhZf wMi+ipGjtDi1LDfdyHATIzB6jkmwOe5gXPDJ8hCjAAejEg+vAufvYCHWxLLiytxDjNIcLEri vJrV84KFBNITS1KzU1MLUovii0pzUosPMTJxcEo1MM4N1OU9r//xaXOf5M5dFjGvJ/BuZpDY dGpFOEfK3X/R4hIPp/Kn8rNtOb6z/bLr/wdxonzB1zOlzkzWECn82PM08+FO2S2vWa48mr9D yyU60/hRpPOiOwIHY+d9vrpD0zq9bFaex5cl19lFzO+XRK36Y1ZY/Jl/R0u2iLXznbSrFtdK jj61vqnEUpyRaKjFXFScCABwJkrnfwIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/YbdP5aGrggO04M5qA2hV3N4gHqw
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:08:40 -0000

--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F362465eusaamb105erics_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support this.
..definitely useful beyond the RLFA eligibility use cases.

--
Uma C.

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:18 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF advert=
ised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of remote-LFA el=
igibility.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.

Thanks,
Acee

--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F362465eusaamb105erics_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support this.<=
/span>


..definitely useful beyon=
d the RLFA eligibility use cases.


 <=
/p>



--


Uma C.<=
/p>



 <=
/p>





From: OSPF [ma=
ilto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:18 PM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-=
tag






 




There are situations where =
node level policy is required and an OSPF advertised admin tag simplifies t=
his. For example, advertisement of remote-LFA eligibility.






 





Please indicate your suppor=
t or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF WG document. 






 





Thanks,





Acee 








--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F362465eusaamb105erics_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 00:09:31 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A851A0AA3 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqhkG_GYXWtF for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE481A0864 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-aa-53fbddf2b160
Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D5.E6.05330.2FDDBF35; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:08:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:09:25 -0400
From: Jeff Tantsura 
To: Ing-Wher Chen , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
Thread-Index: AQHPwPyqrJdjlPOzRKKgH+V1PVvBIw==
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:09:24 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1E776B91B992BD41B149956411E7B316@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlO6nu7+DDeaetrJouXeP3YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGXde/WUq2M9ZsfjaRaYGxh/sXYycHBICJhK9bT3MELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hASOMkqsfPKXFcJZziixe9JDRpAqNgEDif/fjrN0MXJwiAgESsy6zgMSFhZwl9iy 9g3YUBEBD4kb3yazQdh6EpcX7QazWQRUJeYf/MUCYvMKmEvMe/YALM4ItPj7qTVMIDazgLjE rSfzmSAOEpBYsuc81HGiEi8f/2MFsUWBZn6acg6qRklizutrzBC9OhILdn9iAzmNWcBa4tly P4iwtsSyha+ZIdYKSpyc+YRlAqPoLCTbZiHpnoXQPQtJ9ywk3QsYWVcxcpQWp5blphsZbGIE RsMxCTbdHYx7XloeYhTgYFTi4U1w/B0sxJpYVlyZe4hRmoNFSZx3Vu28YCGB9MSS1OzU1ILU ovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MCVsnPetfKxKheVOjkj14fb9V+tNFsevLLTP9pn161hW4TefvHzUX P5+V558tiDj3pjK5b0et2NPMZfniBwWe33mpduh9T/q6L5cmPrTb2fyzK3pivPl9j2tnLjpV cVa+rW7YMWvJweUZZ+oDZq4vmuiZv/es3buZljdj9zA8kT2/5kTZ8t4/ZkosxRmJhlrMRcWJ ANwqotJnAgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/pdlgAL2QelOdqLGrig2xJh306g0
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:09:28 -0000

Hi,

I support this draft, find it rather useful!

Cheers,
Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Ing-Wher Chen 
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 5:53 PM
To: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?

>Hello,
>
>I'd like to ask if the working group would adopt and help improve and
>refine
>the following draft:
>
>
>
>This document describes a mechanism to transport OSPfv3 over IPv4.
>The mechanism allows devices to migrate to OSPFv3 first, which would help
>with transition to IPv6 later.
>
>The latest -01 version addresses an earlier question by including
>an IPv4-only use case in which deployed devices cannot communicate
>in IPv6 but would benefit from using the mechanism proposed in this draft
>to transition to OSPFv3 for now.  Until all devices can communicate using
>IPv6,
>consolidating to OSPFv3 can still reduce operational complexity and cost.
>
>Thanks,
>Helen
>=20
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Tue Aug 26 00:10:47 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D951A0AD0 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b1GstMYlfZ-l for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B9C11A093B for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-98-53fbdbd4bced
Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C2.0A.25146.4DBDBF35; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:59:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:10:41 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwKvK3WdFT8K/dkCarFJ74ODeo5vieEOg
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:10:41 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36248E@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36248Eeusaamb105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn+6V27+DDf4cVrGY/HYes0XLvXvs DkweU35vZPVYsuQnUwBTFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfGhu9n2QqmaFesnbiOsYHxkVoXIweHhICJ xJ0HDl2MnECmmMSFe+vZQGwhgaOMEo+vV3UxcgHZyxklNhx4wQiSYBPQk/g49Sc7iC0i4CVx Y2ITmC0s4CnxcM0WNpj4ignvmCFsI4mbjx+ygtgsAqoSl2b8BovzCvhKvHuwmwlimZbE+p1b weZzCmhLPN+0H6yGEeig76fWgNUwC4hL3HoynwniUAGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jhbCVJCYtPccK UZ8v8XLncSaIXYISJ2c+YZnAKDILyahZSMpmISmDiOtILNj9iQ3C1pZYtvA1M4x95sBjJmTx BYzsqxg5SotTy3LTjQw3MQJj55gEm+MOxgWfLA8xCnAwKvHwKnD+DhZiTSwrrsw9xCjNwaIk zqtZPS9YSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMTB6dUA2Pw9xebS+4/aBRYKqrsMVXqnlaY0pM/ T6qdOmN1Vk/7fOf7xU1nVZNi7DZNXa/BU7za7FbQxnfXZI98Eo2bf79lfq7Mq57Tzf3seTGz 1VpO/T+Tum376ddBDvu9HfnuxShmFHHEqJemyLrc9ZyZGpfdqzGx47/YhRu34r4emLFAfpnM GbefE54osRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAN3/3o34CAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/gp8STfhWF9Ld6w8UveH3vDdQDn8
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:10:45 -0000

--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36248Eeusaamb105erics_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.

--
Uma C.

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:30 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminato=
r

The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents =
 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement o=
f the global S-BFD discriminators.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.
Thanks,
Acee

--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36248Eeusaamb105erics_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support.


 <=
/p>



--


Uma C.<=
/p>



 <=
/p>





From: OSPF [ma=
ilto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:30 PM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discr=
iminator






 




The BFD WG has adopted all =
the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents  - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/b=
fd/documents/






Hence, we feel it is logica=
l to support this work with OSPF advertisement of the global S-BFD discrimi=
nators. 






 





Please indicate your suppor=
t or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF WG document. 






Thanks,





Acee








--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F36248Eeusaamb105erics_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 00:11:41 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E831A0AD0 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LpODZFQ1MVCS for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3504D1A0A92 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-9c-53fbdc0a1224
Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 43.0A.25146.A0CDBF35; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:59:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:11:35 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri 
To: Manav Bhatia , Abhay Roy 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJf53JQiCi1AXEC/xTWZo3ZpdpvihxAA///xfTA=
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:11:35 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3624A4@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com>	<53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiC7Xnd/BBlc/iFgcPjiLzeLypDZ2 i5Z799gdmD2m/N7I6rFz1l12jyVLfjIFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZXTffstecIm3YuqsjywN jL+5uhg5OSQETCSebb3MDmGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgKKPElMmdzBDOckaJCce/M4NUsQnoSXyc +hOsQ0TAWeLTxx2MIDazgLLE467VbCC2sICvxO7N1xkhagIknh8+D2VbSUz5tBFsDouAqsS8 ZavBbF6g+rlH17FALOthlJg37yZrFyMHB6dAoETneQGQGkag676fWsMEsUtc4taT+UwQVwtI LNlznhnCFpV4+fgfK4StJDFp6TlWiHodiQW7P7FB2NoSyxa+htorKHFy5hOWCYxis5CMnYWk ZRaSlllIWhYwsqxi5CgtTi3LTTcy3MQIjJ1jEmyOOxgXfLI8xCjAwajEw6vA+TtYiDWxrLgy 9xCjNAeLkjivZvW8YCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MjhJP1gqVu1efWTthXYBc cU2JdDPrn1mxLEf4VkytiD/2v+qT7gyJJS+nvqg00+3bcOTLmRX1D/hlTm07GLrHOlZgM49C xU8hzs9af8+dEXxWxvRWoXDfzoUJwcq7naJ2R37xnim2Mkg18fCvp26PL8ZF/72nHrpDQ/fB IUGXXR5zt+kernvCqcRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAFUkdmt+AgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/FWimYirRks5d_Y4amrU4rK0_ch8
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:11:38 -0000

Dear Chairs,

Support  (also co-author).

--
Uma C.


-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Manav Bhatia
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:03 PM
To: Abhay Roy
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-addre=
ss

I see that a poll has already been issued.

Yes, i support this to be taken up as a WG document ! :-)

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Abhay Roy  wrote:
> This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD)=20
> requiring it..
>
> Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
> On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
>
> [speaking as WG member]
>
> Two comments..
>
> 1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
>     I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for=20
> IPv4 AF's
>
> 2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I=20
> personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or=20
> Link) since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for=20
> those scopes already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this=20
> document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that?
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Tue Aug 26 01:05:53 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91C71A0AFE for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1fsR8YBGGuM9 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C4DD1A0AFD for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 01:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=780; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409040348; x=1410249948; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aJsOqMYVsc3P/Xw4lMgvCiib6Wf2znPv+cuDg9bTnfo=; b=P2y3v5zd+Wc5H5vp8w3LPvU/6jgRYRml17s/XyMy0uaaYmhPI+Bg3c6N 1PEwqDvY2f1NbJ4qUBRzmcDbHQM68i8XbcPHrNH2Pv/VH8ufUvmcX4kCk ctKZ2V8OFBnXtlZ1EF0A6Eg9TRNQQQqVw3KRc6DT/yDR2NhAtgsdJfETI s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq4EAE4//FOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABag2BXzEoKh00BgSp3hAMBAQEDAQEBATU2ChELGAkWDwkDAgECARUwBg0GAgEBiDYIDb4jEwSPU4RMAQScSYcvjV2DYDsvgk8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,402,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="153322156"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 08:05:44 +0000
Received: from [10.55.51.206] (ams-ppsenak-87113.cisco.com [10.55.51.206]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7Q85iO0016504 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:05:44 GMT
Message-ID: <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:05:44 +0200
From: Peter Psenak 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ospf@ietf.org" 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/jubowtp5oKrd0yxReOmlGFodTgw
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:05:51 -0000

On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
> remote-LFA eligibility.

my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability 
is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of 
the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have 
to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.

thanks,
Peter

>
> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
> OSPF WG document.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>


From nobody Tue Aug 26 02:49:27 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A861A6F0D for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.868
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fEMvRgWwywe5 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 670481A6F03 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIT01385; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:49:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.33) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:49:15 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.57]) by SZXEMA401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:49:11 +0800
From: Mach Chen 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwKvK3WdFT8K/dkCarFJ74ODeo5vipIoA
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:49:10 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.111.97.72]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE25DA8D1F2SZXEMA510MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/dWZ9XJbegY8rj8qfGh8Mw2rTDXQ
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:49:23 -0000

--_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE25DA8D1F2SZXEMA510MBXchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.

Best regards,
Mach

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:30 AM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminato=
r

The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents =
 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement o=
f the global S-BFD discriminators.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.
Thanks,
Acee

--_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE25DA8D1F2SZXEMA510MBXchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable













=
Support.=



=
 

=
Best regards,


=
Mach


=
 







From:
 OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On=
 Behalf Of
Acee Lindem (acee)

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 20=
14 5:30 AM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG =
Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator





 




The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents
 as WG documents  - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/






Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF
 advertisement of the global S-BFD discriminators. <=
/font>






 






Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this
 draft as an OSPF WG document. 






Thanks,






Acee










--_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE25DA8D1F2SZXEMA510MBXchi_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 02:49:54 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7511A6F1A for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.868
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dL2trtMn6zYI for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BE731A6F0F for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLU09369; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:49:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.34) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:49:39 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.57]) by SZXEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:49:33 +0800
From: Mach Chen 
To: Abhay Roy , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJgLZNZrvLKhYUaKLbzvDqPwzZvipNHg
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:49:33 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.111.97.72]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE25DA8D200SZXEMA510MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/9wdjZ065UaR5PEpCfgAASvERuMM
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:49:53 -0000

--_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE25DA8D200SZXEMA510MBXchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.

Best regards,
Mach

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abhay Roy
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:09 AM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiri=
ng it..

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.

Regards,
-Abhay
On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF'=
s

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domai=
n-wide". Any concerns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay




_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list

OSPF@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


--_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE25DA8D200SZXEMA510MBXchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable













=
Support.=



=
 

=
Best regards,


=
Mach


=
 







=
From:
 OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On=
 Behalf Of
Abhay Roy

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 20=
14 3:09 AM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG =
adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address






 


This is a sim=
ple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring
 it.. 



Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. 



Regards,

-Abhay




On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:<=
/o:p>






[speaking as WG member]



Two comments..



1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.&q=
uot;. 

    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.=
e. for IPv4 AF's 



2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the
 scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns=
 with that? 



Regards,

-Abhay










___________________________________________=
____


OSPF mailing list<=
/pre>

OSPF@ietf.=
org


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf




 








--_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE25DA8D200SZXEMA510MBXchi_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 06:45:37 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C121A6FF9 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vm0StvBSCwWo for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E9501A6FDE for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 06:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1312; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409060732; x=1410270332; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=W7Fy42vH2pLTa6d9Exz+ANxFYFRSA+wDtPzGkCFgxMg=; b=euxX9bqH0FFjdgueC0GcsXMGjUUQ6H3V4DI5htoEo2ev1X1Ex/iSKO8+ v7Ib/Op+8F/IkKO3IK9wFO4LWxDfx6xNhBoul+kKmg4p3AfZpr7sJOfJY H2yPMR9t21V3C6JmCmCmBx3Pri12uPsiIY170uPLCvnsD3Tjgz9cxsQvB c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFALaO/FOtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagw1TVwTMRwqHTQGBExZ3hAQBAQQBAQFrGwIBCBguJwslAgQBEohCDb5iEwSPU4RMBYpmhkCLI5UMg15sgUiBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,404,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="72433518"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 13:45:31 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QDjVMZ006219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:45:31 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:45:31 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvi248AgAAb4AA=
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:45:31 +0000
Message-ID: 
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <409419B3A539CC45AE4CA801D13837B3@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/9LxrVw0cwTy7tqsCULoWv_7O89E
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:45:36 -0000

Hi Peter,=20
This is a valid concern and one that we=B9ve discussed previously with
respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
advertisement for popular applications.
Thanks,
Acee=20

On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"  wrote:

>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
>> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
>> remote-LFA eligibility.
>
>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
>the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
>to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
>
>thanks,
>Peter
>
>>
>> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
>> OSPF WG document.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Tue Aug 26 07:30:32 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941221A8028 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QMhQPc9RR1-S for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 462301A7D83 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1616; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409063428; x=1410273028; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dETM5zVc07QLOp2zdbR8tdBRKIPkmY3lrEhxwSRHxYA=; b=UzTRaO8nEFsBLDhlYGakaqclogoTMWEc0X1kQy0W0ZHfLp6gj3uyFL2U EahC3XXuoSrmLkgVMPMqvoFxbpxaZWKr23gmaRPxPwoCNVFoQ0TRVzh1N /7F8xxTM7MDu8rah4HBAu97I3UrsrU/lMIy1heGyiAScJGDlvvZmM2Gav Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,404,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="153659933"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 14:30:26 +0000
Received: from [10.148.128.133] ([10.148.128.133]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QEUQwo029131; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:30:26 GMT
Message-ID: <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:30:26 +0200
From: Peter Psenak 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/NYBV_beyFFBzO0qCfewUzh-8N94
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:30:30 -0000

Hi Acee,

On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
> respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
> draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
> advertisement for popular applications.

sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote 
LFA tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best 
approach for.

thanks,
Peter

> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"  wrote:
>
>> On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
>>> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
>>> remote-LFA eligibility.
>>
>> my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
>> is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
>> the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
>> to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>>
>>> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
>>> OSPF WG document.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
> .
>


From nobody Tue Aug 26 07:38:02 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F0231A86EB for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NNeyFZeMFaZQ for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 471311A86E9 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x69so10771691oia.6 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Q+5lEb3xdFGAETcENwPl9etBjttFkr6v0GDYOPCldeg=; b=e6+eOfNE7a1KMDjcmjJIPZtyQan4UGbr3wzpqB6q9CsLROiAZv7lyra9pelKfs5e5r gTfjKEu6+4wJxJH3NwcoBOafkHh3In31MWLrHxSIOQ4ttk6HntD7gG6Rs9b9Ii9Hkyal WOsEw5RvpT96uDZeRYVdjFpgmfpQr6LJ9FHLZeAXc8pq1leagcQn5phq6aqwSzvU0vmE hmY+5xX7Trn5YHyJ67/sYHNWiIahcs2Pl2Yfy4F8skx7XGhMSyjMjJs2WpT6ApVbwXll JePwSy9x+S7L/i4ESycNr2nQUy+UAGWt9KD+/8AgKeouJMlOteKxZh5Lc7MPiYsOeuQB 3kbg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.65.65 with SMTP id v1mr14597883obs.58.1409063877747; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.154.100 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53FB88C5.4010008@cisco.com>
References:  <53FB88C5.4010008@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:07:57 +0530
Message-ID: 
From: Manav Bhatia 
To: Abhay Roy 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/yIZ_vuchx-_u29YwBmG7jHBQ3hI
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:38:00 -0000

Support!

Cheers, Manav

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Abhay Roy  wrote:
> We have strong support from all the authors to accept this work ;-)
>
> Can a few non-authors also chime in with their thoughts/support?
>
> Speaking as a WG member, I support this work because it also fixes the
> Virtual Link limitation we left unsupported in RFC5838 for IPv4 Unicast AF.
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
>
> On 7/22/14, 5:53 PM, Ing-Wher Chen wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to ask if the working group would adopt and help improve and
>> refine
>> the following draft:
>>
>> 
>>
>> This document describes a mechanism to transport OSPfv3 over IPv4.
>> The mechanism allows devices to migrate to OSPFv3 first, which would help
>> with transition to IPv6 later.
>>
>> The latest -01 version addresses an earlier question by including
>> an IPv4-only use case in which deployed devices cannot communicate
>> in IPv6 but would benefit from using the mechanism proposed in this draft
>> to transition to OSPFv3 for now.  Until all devices can communicate using
>> IPv6,
>> consolidating to OSPFv3 can still reduce operational complexity and cost.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Helen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Tue Aug 26 08:32:22 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D847A1A8716 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rNEqmcFnEcvS for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0235.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CABE51A8717 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hannes-mba.local (66.129.239.14) by BN1PR05MB439.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:32:14 +0000
Received: from juniper.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by hannes-mba.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E33A259C55; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:32:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:32:01 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler 
To: Peter Psenak 
Message-ID: <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net>
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>  <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Originating-IP: [66.129.239.14]
X-ClientProxiedBy: CO2PR06CA013.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.242.13) To BN1PR05MB439.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.22)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 03152A99FF
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(979002)(6009001)(377454003)(479174003)(51444003)(164054003)(24454002)(189002)(199003)(74502001)(102836001)(105586002)(76506005)(87976001)(92726001)(77096002)(74662001)(31966008)(107046002)(106356001)(33656002)(110136001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(23756003)(83322001)(81342001)(92566001)(64706001)(80022001)(66066001)(81542001)(4396001)(85306004)(93886004)(46102001)(76482001)(83506001)(76176999)(50986999)(54356999)(86362001)(15975445006)(99396002)(21056001)(95666004)(47776003)(101416001)(20776003)(230783001)(50466002)(79102001)(77982001)(36756003)(83072002)(90102001)(85852003)(579124003)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB439; H:hannes-mba.local; FPR:; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; 
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/u-60V5UtdzgJRbqiZSsR319F_qY
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:32:20 -0000

hi peter,

operators want to assign node-tags as per router function (ABR, PE, core) and then
the LFA-selection becomes much easier to specify. - e.g.
- only pick a LFA that does not cross another PE router.

similarily it is desirable for "LFA tunnel termination" 
to put out a constraint which says
- only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'

i found it always strange that we for TE (as an example for
constraining paths) we have got ways to tag links, but
not way to tag nodes - that draft aims to fix that.

HTH,

/hannes

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:30:26PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
| Hi Acee,
| 
| On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
| >Hi Peter,
| >This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
| >respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
| >draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
| >advertisement for popular applications.
| 
| sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote LFA
| tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best approach
| for.
| 
| thanks,
| Peter
| 
| >Thanks,
| >Acee
| >
| >On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"  wrote:
| >
| >>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
| >>>There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
| >>>advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
| >>>remote-LFA eligibility.
| >>
| >>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
| >>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
| >>the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
| >>to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
| >>
| >>thanks,
| >>Peter
| >>
| >>>
| >>>Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
| >>>OSPF WG document.
| >>>
| >>>Thanks,
| >>>Acee
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>_______________________________________________
| >>>OSPF mailing list
| >>>OSPF@ietf.org
| >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| >>>
| >>
| >>_______________________________________________
| >>OSPF mailing list
| >>OSPF@ietf.org
| >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| >
| >.
| >
| 
| _______________________________________________
| OSPF mailing list
| OSPF@ietf.org
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Tue Aug 26 08:43:56 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79BF1A86E1 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rMoObkv7k3VD for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B210D1A8546 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3183; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409067830; x=1410277430; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=F1xItJdAa0s9QXMVVvNkXHOCl/SqyNXPwlt82VnVFYU=; b=BMEsYLoxwE5GdGavRxri0FFpPKrEvjH86qnksZoznWSwQ0UeL8xvSmlQ zcbpf2MGCf0GqPSQ9ybMtcvEnkXR95lX/gzhcwKwDRp6yw/E/zqiJkMxj Lipcd10TGAJbgC3ojFjL4w3fTx21VRpqA7dKEAZakJYbuo/y+OQdBMSGh U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,405,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="153723790"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 15:43:49 +0000
Received: from [10.148.128.133] ([10.148.128.133]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QFhmGN000563; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:43:48 GMT
Message-ID: <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:43:48 +0200
From: Peter Psenak 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hannes Gredler 
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>  <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com> <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/4JSFNILKVTFj2QSdTDK0ewuyEMc
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:43:55 -0000

Hi Hannes,

On 8/26/14 17:32 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
> hi peter,
>
> operators want to assign node-tags as per router function (ABR, PE, core) and then
> the LFA-selection becomes much easier to specify. - e.g.
> - only pick a LFA that does not cross another PE router.
>
> similarily it is desirable for "LFA tunnel termination"
> to put out a constraint which says
> - only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'

my point is that with the above approach you have to:
1. On candidate PQ nodes configure the tag X
2. on all other nodes configure "only pick a PQ neighbor which has node 
tag 'X'"

It's (2) which makes me feel uncomfortable, as it's a config to be 
applied to many nodes.

If we instead define a capability bit which would mean "PQ candidate", 
we would avoid (2).

>
> i found it always strange that we for TE (as an example for
> constraining paths) we have got ways to tag links, but
> not way to tag nodes - that draft aims to fix that.

I'm not against tagging nodes as such. What worries me if we end up 
using node tags for signalling capabilities of node.

thanks,
Peter

>
> HTH,
>
> /hannes
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:30:26PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
> | Hi Acee,
> |
> | On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> | >Hi Peter,
> | >This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
> | >respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
> | >draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
> | >advertisement for popular applications.
> |
> | sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote LFA
> | tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best approach
> | for.
> |
> | thanks,
> | Peter
> |
> | >Thanks,
> | >Acee
> | >
> | >On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"  wrote:
> | >
> | >>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> | >>>There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
> | >>>advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
> | >>>remote-LFA eligibility.
> | >>
> | >>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
> | >>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
> | >>the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
> | >>to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
> | >>
> | >>thanks,
> | >>Peter
> | >>
> | >>>
> | >>>Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
> | >>>OSPF WG document.
> | >>>
> | >>>Thanks,
> | >>>Acee
> | >>>
> | >>>
> | >>>_______________________________________________
> | >>>OSPF mailing list
> | >>>OSPF@ietf.org
> | >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> | >>>
> | >>
> | >>_______________________________________________
> | >>OSPF mailing list
> | >>OSPF@ietf.org
> | >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> | >
> | >.
> | >
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | OSPF mailing list
> | OSPF@ietf.org
> | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> .
>


From nobody Tue Aug 26 08:59:36 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17531A876F for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YM_Lmjcb6XLB for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0141.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A29931A8747 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152) by CO1PR05MB428.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.74.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1005.10; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:59:29 +0000
Received: from hannes-mba.local (66.129.239.14) by CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1010.18; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:59:23 +0000
Received: from juniper.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by hannes-mba.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB8F25A643; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:59:17 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:59:17 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler 
To: Peter Psenak 
Message-ID: <20140826155917.GA6346@juniper.net>
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>  <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com> <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net> <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Originating-IP: [66.129.239.14]
X-ClientProxiedBy: BY2PR03CA045.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.249.18) To CO1PR05MB443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.152)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;UriScan:;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 03152A99FF
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(51444003)(24454002)(199003)(479174003)(189002)(377454003)(20776003)(23756003)(99396002)(47776003)(66066001)(230783001)(80022001)(64706001)(85306004)(93886004)(4396001)(21056001)(81542001)(81342001)(50986999)(76506005)(87976001)(19580395003)(54356999)(19580405001)(15975445006)(101416001)(83506001)(76176999)(85852003)(31966008)(95666004)(106356001)(107046002)(33656002)(74502001)(90102001)(50466002)(77096002)(83072002)(110136001)(92726001)(92566001)(83322001)(74662001)(86362001)(46102001)(77982001)(36756003)(102836001)(105586002)(79102001)(76482001)(579124003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB443; H:hannes-mba.local; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; 
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/OPwD7FyYN4SWKR9URPb3YbauQrk
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:59:35 -0000

hi peter,

understood - so what about simply reserving a certain range of the tag space
for well-known applications (+IANA registry etc.) such that
for 2) we can avoid distributing policies ?

/hannes

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
| Hi Hannes,
| 
| On 8/26/14 17:32 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
| >hi peter,
| >
| >operators want to assign node-tags as per router function (ABR, PE, core) and then
| >the LFA-selection becomes much easier to specify. - e.g.
| >- only pick a LFA that does not cross another PE router.
| >
| >similarily it is desirable for "LFA tunnel termination"
| >to put out a constraint which says
| >- only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'
| 
| my point is that with the above approach you have to:
| 1. On candidate PQ nodes configure the tag X
| 2. on all other nodes configure "only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag
| 'X'"
| 
| It's (2) which makes me feel uncomfortable, as it's a config to be applied
| to many nodes.
| 
| If we instead define a capability bit which would mean "PQ candidate", we
| would avoid (2).
| 
| >
| >i found it always strange that we for TE (as an example for
| >constraining paths) we have got ways to tag links, but
| >not way to tag nodes - that draft aims to fix that.
| 
| I'm not against tagging nodes as such. What worries me if we end up using
| node tags for signalling capabilities of node.
| 
| thanks,
| Peter
| 
| >
| >HTH,
| >
| >/hannes
| >
| >On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:30:26PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
| >| Hi Acee,
| >|
| >| On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
| >| >Hi Peter,
| >| >This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
| >| >respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
| >| >draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
| >| >advertisement for popular applications.
| >|
| >| sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote LFA
| >| tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best approach
| >| for.
| >|
| >| thanks,
| >| Peter
| >|
| >| >Thanks,
| >| >Acee
| >| >
| >| >On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"  wrote:
| >| >
| >| >>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
| >| >>>There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
| >| >>>advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
| >| >>>remote-LFA eligibility.
| >| >>
| >| >>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
| >| >>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
| >| >>the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
| >| >>to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
| >| >>
| >| >>thanks,
| >| >>Peter
| >| >>
| >| >>>
| >| >>>Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
| >| >>>OSPF WG document.
| >| >>>
| >| >>>Thanks,
| >| >>>Acee
| >| >>>
| >| >>>
| >| >>>_______________________________________________
| >| >>>OSPF mailing list
| >| >>>OSPF@ietf.org
| >| >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| >| >>>
| >| >>
| >| >>_______________________________________________
| >| >>OSPF mailing list
| >| >>OSPF@ietf.org
| >| >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| >| >
| >| >.
| >| >
| >|
| >| _______________________________________________
| >| OSPF mailing list
| >| OSPF@ietf.org
| >| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| >.
| >
| 


From nobody Tue Aug 26 09:40:31 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690951A00EA for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ig5elxiZE-fS for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D21CD1A000A for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4036; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409071226; x=1410280826; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QDK0u8Bvx14G1oCoCBUp7VSJDAdnjwPHYnFQvSvXMlk=; b=bmTlaSobtaq8/zNm8kzgGx1mW+j8iWoCRTufZGzZQHW+LKboLUiwgwIo geW9KNhXB7k0/ebEFv5eyF75Z0r+kUzTfagSpboPzLsJo8CLzcjkvmGTV TmWFlCJnT0KO1J0VMeuxSQcAGMP806WQUq+HsQu3/xG7IgqPh8nfj1L5y U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,405,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="153773205"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 16:40:23 +0000
Received: from [10.55.51.206] (ams-ppsenak-87113.cisco.com [10.55.51.206]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QGeNXG019888; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:40:23 GMT
Message-ID: <53FCB876.7030408@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:40:22 +0200
From: Peter Psenak 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hannes Gredler 
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>  <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com> <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net> <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com> <20140826155917.GA6346@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140826155917.GA6346@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/HjvSRynplRayXmP4jJIbClnGwNQ
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:40:30 -0000

Hi Hannes,

On 8/26/14 17:59 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
> hi peter,
>
> understood - so what about simply reserving a certain range of the tag space
> for well-known applications (+IANA registry etc.) such that
> for 2) we can avoid distributing policies ?

we have an existing mechanism for advertising capabilities - RFC4970, 
section 2.3 and 2.4. We can reserve a bit for each well-known application.

thanks,
Peter

>
> /hannes
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
> | Hi Hannes,
> |
> | On 8/26/14 17:32 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
> | >hi peter,
> | >
> | >operators want to assign node-tags as per router function (ABR, PE, core) and then
> | >the LFA-selection becomes much easier to specify. - e.g.
> | >- only pick a LFA that does not cross another PE router.
> | >
> | >similarily it is desirable for "LFA tunnel termination"
> | >to put out a constraint which says
> | >- only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'
> |
> | my point is that with the above approach you have to:
> | 1. On candidate PQ nodes configure the tag X
> | 2. on all other nodes configure "only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag
> | 'X'"
> |
> | It's (2) which makes me feel uncomfortable, as it's a config to be applied
> | to many nodes.
> |
> | If we instead define a capability bit which would mean "PQ candidate", we
> | would avoid (2).
> |
> | >
> | >i found it always strange that we for TE (as an example for
> | >constraining paths) we have got ways to tag links, but
> | >not way to tag nodes - that draft aims to fix that.
> |
> | I'm not against tagging nodes as such. What worries me if we end up using
> | node tags for signalling capabilities of node.
> |
> | thanks,
> | Peter
> |
> | >
> | >HTH,
> | >
> | >/hannes
> | >
> | >On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:30:26PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
> | >| Hi Acee,
> | >|
> | >| On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> | >| >Hi Peter,
> | >| >This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
> | >| >respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
> | >| >draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
> | >| >advertisement for popular applications.
> | >|
> | >| sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote LFA
> | >| tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best approach
> | >| for.
> | >|
> | >| thanks,
> | >| Peter
> | >|
> | >| >Thanks,
> | >| >Acee
> | >| >
> | >| >On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"  wrote:
> | >| >
> | >| >>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> | >| >>>There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
> | >| >>>advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
> | >| >>>remote-LFA eligibility.
> | >| >>
> | >| >>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
> | >| >>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
> | >| >>the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
> | >| >>to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
> | >| >>
> | >| >>thanks,
> | >| >>Peter
> | >| >>
> | >| >>>
> | >| >>>Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
> | >| >>>OSPF WG document.
> | >| >>>
> | >| >>>Thanks,
> | >| >>>Acee
> | >| >>>
> | >| >>>
> | >| >>>_______________________________________________
> | >| >>>OSPF mailing list
> | >| >>>OSPF@ietf.org
> | >| >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> | >| >>>
> | >| >>
> | >| >>_______________________________________________
> | >| >>OSPF mailing list
> | >| >>OSPF@ietf.org
> | >| >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> | >| >
> | >| >.
> | >| >
> | >|
> | >| _______________________________________________
> | >| OSPF mailing list
> | >| OSPF@ietf.org
> | >| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> | >.
> | >
> |
> .
>


From nobody Tue Aug 26 10:03:33 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA511A0062 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pj4jnYVJcYoa for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23FF71A005B for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2268; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409072608; x=1410282208; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PBebQJoGrf+GkuFezC6QkR+0Z93DUamHMenvqtrPomA=; b=Q2dUSAEjM/xVB0k6uM/oRH98DIVHUoCqKzjdUJBX17nZcRnpvCa0sQG2 bINa3+laQNFVFLzoE/TLTCri2lmkIggJM3PVOhg+pCFIkkNlTvyQ1W3so M2r2OFVqFJrhGIx7E/TAnaaTe0pYscuW8uyBsVrvfy0yt2/o6eiSXTpyO Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,405,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="149711322"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 17:03:25 +0000
Received: from as-lnx.cisco.com (ams-asmirnov-8714.cisco.com [10.55.140.85]) (authenticated bits=0) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QH3O3b029904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:03:25 GMT
Message-ID: <53FCBDDC.6000902@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:03:24 +0200
From: Anton Smirnov 
Organization: Cisco Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Psenak , "ospf@ietf.org" 
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: asmirnov
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/kjr_Gne9FjykmvtXjT1rEEzCoRY
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:03:31 -0000

    Hi Peter,
    the draft lists about 5 different *example* applications which COULD 
be addressed by node admin tags. So if you take 1 particular possible 
scenario out of the draft - you still have 4 possible applications. 
Examples are there to demonstrate that admin tags is useful general 
tool, not to require the solution.
    Sure, each of possible scenarios can be solved by tailored solution. 
But each tailored solution is required to go via IETF adoption and 
implementation by vendors. And indeed, in cases where tailored solution 
brings so much operational benefit that it warrants slow path of IETF 
adoption, feature development by multiple vendors and network deployment 
- it will be used and will kill desire to solve the problem with admin tags.
   And vice verse - tags (when widely supported) will facilitate rapid 
development and deployment of services which we otherwise can't (or 
slow) to offer.


    As for your particular example - operator still has to go to each 
and every device and enable Remote LFA on it. But we are not trying to 
solve this operational complexity with OSPF autoconfiguration. So it 
shouldn't be that complex to enable acceptable node tag at the same time 
as enabling rLFA itself.

Anton


On 08/26/2014 10:05 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
>> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
>> remote-LFA eligibility.
>
> my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
> is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
> the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
> to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>>
>> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
>> OSPF WG document.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Tue Aug 26 10:21:16 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F741A0087 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id umTVzotKRKOE for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FE8B1A0022 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-75-53fc6d48f4f9
Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0C.4E.05330.84D6CF35; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:19:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 13:20:59 -0400
From: Jeff Tantsura 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwVIaRVxnYMFF6kSC2dSaaLUnAA==
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:20:58 +0000
Message-ID: 
References:  
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0220FF26EF4Ajefftantsuraericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonRNcj90+wwaplyhaT385jtmi5d4/d gcljyu+NrB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MpobX7NWrDKtuL43yb2BsZOsy5GDg4JAROJ pU0GXYycQKaYxIV769m6GLk4hASOMkos6XvJCuEsZ5Q41bGVGaSKTcBA4v+34ywgtoiAl8SN iU3sILawQJDEms1PoOLBEvfm9LFC2HoSC/quMILYLAKqEot2dYDZvALmEm/W72ADsYUEyiQ2 fjsLNodTIExiwq8nYHFGoIu+n1rDBGIzC4hL3HoynwniUgGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/8D2yUKtOvT lHNQNYoS+/qns0P0xkicPnOdDWKvoMTJmU9YJjCKzkIydhaSsllIyiDiOhILdn9ig7C1JZYt fM0MY5858Biq11pi1d17jMhqFjByrGLkKC1OLctNNzLYxAiMtmMSbLo7GPe8tDzEKMDBqMTD uyDqT7AQa2JZcWXuIUZpDhYlcd5ZtfOChQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTC26O3b ZMJ7lTu0aWec7o97V1+ZMcdl8HSGK18K2rLum1jOokP/H1ZOdkrVfqT+WmRGwO8slapz65fF nZOzCdrLcTI7zfz+gwzPWzfkZU/4NRm8NLhyx7NaWOjm7Gv+nmUcHG7luss3Jb6d0jM7a7mR lNnyffxWkw7tcA/cdMA6dhVPh0j4Dk4lluKMREMt5qLiRADvPvqKlwIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/M3Rgu0hzood36CnUWbikOpeBQwI
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:21:12 -0000

--_000_D0220FF26EF4Ajefftantsuraericssoncom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes/support

Cheers,
Jeff

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:30 AM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminato=
r

The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents =
 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement o=
f the global S-BFD discriminators.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.
Thanks,
Acee

--_000_D0220FF26EF4Ajefftantsuraericssoncom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <72EC5C9E16D2444C81E86C81B4DCD00B@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Yes/support









Cheers,


Jeff




























From:
 OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.or=
g] 
On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)=


Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 20=
14 5:30 AM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG =
Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator





 




The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base docum=
ents as WG documents  - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/






Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with=
 OSPF advertisement of the global S-BFD discriminators. 






 






Please indicate your support or objections to adopting=
 this draft as an OSPF WG document. 






Thanks,






Acee













=




--_000_D0220FF26EF4Ajefftantsuraericssoncom_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 10:56:23 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AE01A002D for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WKej5oNArTmc for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0241.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82D1E1A0055 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hannes-mba.local (66.129.239.14) by BN1PR05MB440.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:56:09 +0000
Received: from juniper.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by hannes-mba.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E0925ADE6; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:56:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:56:04 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler 
To: Peter Psenak 
Message-ID: <20140826175604.GB8919@juniper.net>
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>  <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com> <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net> <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com> <20140826155917.GA6346@juniper.net> <53FCB876.7030408@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <53FCB876.7030408@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Originating-IP: [66.129.239.14]
X-ClientProxiedBy: CO2PR04CA023.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.240.151) To BN1PR05MB440.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.26)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 03152A99FF
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(377454003)(199003)(24454002)(189002)(51444003)(479174003)(83072002)(85852003)(81542001)(106356001)(81342001)(46102001)(99396002)(77096002)(83506001)(95666004)(50466002)(92566001)(87976001)(36756003)(105586002)(23756003)(92726001)(110136001)(4396001)(21056001)(107046002)(66066001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(74502001)(74662001)(80022001)(79102001)(101416001)(83322001)(90102001)(64706001)(20776003)(31966008)(54356999)(86362001)(76482001)(102836001)(50986999)(76176999)(15975445006)(85306004)(33656002)(47776003)(93886004)(76506005)(230783001)(77982001)(579124003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB440; H:hannes-mba.local; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; 
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/6nNMyKqigHwC4sp6bXR5udngDEg
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:56:19 -0000

hi peter,

if you can convince stewart to add it as part of the rlfa spec
it would be certainly a good thing to have :-)

in the meantime i'd like to use the tagging scheme as described
and use it as a last resort tool for expressing network policy
in case there is lack of protocol support for doing so.

/hannes

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:40:22PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
| Hi Hannes,
| 
| On 8/26/14 17:59 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
| >hi peter,
| >
| >understood - so what about simply reserving a certain range of the tag space
| >for well-known applications (+IANA registry etc.) such that
| >for 2) we can avoid distributing policies ?
| 
| we have an existing mechanism for advertising capabilities - RFC4970,
| section 2.3 and 2.4. We can reserve a bit for each well-known application.
| 
| thanks,
| Peter
| 
| >
| >/hannes
| >
| >On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
| >| Hi Hannes,
| >|
| >| On 8/26/14 17:32 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
| >| >hi peter,
| >| >
| >| >operators want to assign node-tags as per router function (ABR, PE, core) and then
| >| >the LFA-selection becomes much easier to specify. - e.g.
| >| >- only pick a LFA that does not cross another PE router.
| >| >
| >| >similarily it is desirable for "LFA tunnel termination"
| >| >to put out a constraint which says
| >| >- only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'
| >|
| >| my point is that with the above approach you have to:
| >| 1. On candidate PQ nodes configure the tag X
| >| 2. on all other nodes configure "only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag
| >| 'X'"
| >|
| >| It's (2) which makes me feel uncomfortable, as it's a config to be applied
| >| to many nodes.
| >|
| >| If we instead define a capability bit which would mean "PQ candidate", we
| >| would avoid (2).
| >|
| >| >
| >| >i found it always strange that we for TE (as an example for
| >| >constraining paths) we have got ways to tag links, but
| >| >not way to tag nodes - that draft aims to fix that.
| >|
| >| I'm not against tagging nodes as such. What worries me if we end up using
| >| node tags for signalling capabilities of node.
| >|
| >| thanks,
| >| Peter
| >|
| >| >
| >| >HTH,
| >| >
| >| >/hannes
| >| >
| >| >On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:30:26PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
| >| >| Hi Acee,
| >| >|
| >| >| On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
| >| >| >Hi Peter,
| >| >| >This is a valid concern and one that we¹ve discussed previously with
| >| >| >respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accepting this
| >| >| >draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of capabilities
| >| >| >advertisement for popular applications.
| >| >|
| >| >| sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling Remote LFA
| >| >| tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best approach
| >| >| for.
| >| >|
| >| >| thanks,
| >| >| Peter
| >| >|
| >| >| >Thanks,
| >| >| >Acee
| >| >| >
| >| >| >On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"  wrote:
| >| >| >
| >| >| >>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
| >| >| >>>There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
| >| >| >>>advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
| >| >| >>>remote-LFA eligibility.
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability
| >| >| >>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling of
| >| >| >>the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you have
| >| >| >>to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >>thanks,
| >| >| >>Peter
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >>>
| >| >| >>>Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an
| >| >| >>>OSPF WG document.
| >| >| >>>
| >| >| >>>Thanks,
| >| >| >>>Acee
| >| >| >>>
| >| >| >>>
| >| >| >>>_______________________________________________
| >| >| >>>OSPF mailing list
| >| >| >>>OSPF@ietf.org
| >| >| >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| >| >| >>>
| >| >| >>
| >| >| >>_______________________________________________
| >| >| >>OSPF mailing list
| >| >| >>OSPF@ietf.org
| >| >| >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| >| >| >
| >| >| >.
| >| >| >
| >| >|
| >| >| _______________________________________________
| >| >| OSPF mailing list
| >| >| OSPF@ietf.org
| >| >| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
| >| >.
| >| >
| >|
| >.
| >
| 


From nobody Tue Aug 26 14:41:04 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116121A00B7 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.168
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLJ2ryenYG7M for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C2A61A0048 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5456; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409089258; x=1410298858; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=rOQ5+7d66DnIr00VwS/8f/hfUi+kfR8awKzcF+fx9xg=; b=C6TUTqEAil2r9Q0Beryg15fFvdFNcwvbPTFFkxFpACL+7MeZIEjslJ2A HIj4/CLSddr+aCcEWqCdMz3b2L+HIDvezBZX4K8/A48CZgxAgXlwrfPPa 0tSw4iR0rLRheN53MKJ+f5pEGrn3OrEhKyFAiIgIakU+PGhteV0zFx4Yw U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj0FAH7+/FOtJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABbgkcjI1NXBLJUmCKBZIdMAYEaFneEAwEBAQQtXAIBCBEEAQELHQcyFAkIAgQBEgiIOgEMv04Xjxs3AYMvgR0FjxmCFIQriFSTPINebIFIgQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,406,1406592000";  d="scan'208,217";a="350438831"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 21:40:56 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QLetaC030056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:40:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:40:55 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwKvK3WdFT8K/dkCarFJ74ODeo5vja3Jw
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:40:54 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [128.107.163.140]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23EFDB2Dxmbalnx02ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/qmOiDjeI_b2P6BTW8hy79kb7Mro
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:41:02 -0000

--_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23EFDB2Dxmbalnx02ciscoc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.

   Les

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:30 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminato=
r

The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents =
 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement o=
f the global S-BFD discriminators.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.
Thanks,
Acee

--_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23EFDB2Dxmbalnx02ciscoc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support.


 <=
/p>

   Les


 <=
/p>







From: OSPF [ma=
ilto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:30 PM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discr=
iminator






 




The BFD WG has adopted all =
the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents  - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/b=
fd/documents/






Hence, we feel it is logica=
l to support this work with OSPF advertisement of the global S-BFD discrimi=
nators. 






 





Please indicate your suppor=
t or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF WG document. 






Thanks,





Acee










--_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23EFDB2Dxmbalnx02ciscoc_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 14:50:53 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F1E1A01F2 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sDhlCnFFR-Wh for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B5201A01EB for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5364; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409089849; x=1410299449; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=OpLFNttkpdn2aW5+RjayAe4gaj2Lz7O4NxEvmrg+Hrw=; b=KbYFMjOdJfYGkd/VTO4yXmCl8pZddNjDaBRf8u4mKMK5Y9KeybvFh0Xi juuLCWQunLne8sotN4MDOdlV8pO1IcmDBSrBKrnexWOOXlAMd27WKYBd8 e3OvqwUkg5pX3BcrQeMNbkknFaxEZ8Rx5Nhb4ARf8Kr8FBPmJ/0Nqr6vE k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFALL//FOtJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABbgmojU1cEzFAKh0wBgRoWd4QDAQEBBAEBAWsLDAQCAQgRBAEBAQodBycLFAkIAgQBDQUIiDoBDL9MEwSPGzEHBoMpgR0FimyGQaA7g15sgUiBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,406,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="350488111"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 21:50:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7QLomEn024299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:50:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:50:48 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
To: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" , Hannes Gredler 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvi248AgAAb4ACAAE+cAIAAETWAgAADSwCAAARTgIAAC3sAgAABCuA=
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:50:47 +0000
Message-ID: 
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>  <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com> <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net> <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com> <20140826155917.GA6346@juniper.net> <53FCB876.7030408@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FCB876.7030408@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [128.107.163.140]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/cLIi5fEdMD2wOf0QB99e1WCVRdw
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:50:51 -0000

I support making this draft a WG item - but I do think a much more complete=
 discussion regarding the tradeoffs between using node tags vs capability i=
dentifiers needs to be included - if for no other reason than if/when this =
draft were to become an RFC we would have two mechanisms and it  is not so =
clear when it is more appropriate to use one over another.

We don't have to come to a conclusion on that issue in this thread - nor sh=
ould it preclude making this a WG item - but it is definitely an important =
issue to be discussed.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> (ppsenak)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:40 AM
> To: Hannes Gredler
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-
> tag
>=20
> Hi Hannes,
>=20
> On 8/26/14 17:59 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
> > hi peter,
> >
> > understood - so what about simply reserving a certain range of the tag
> space
> > for well-known applications (+IANA registry etc.) such that
> > for 2) we can avoid distributing policies ?
>=20
> we have an existing mechanism for advertising capabilities - RFC4970,
> section 2.3 and 2.4. We can reserve a bit for each well-known application=
.
>=20
> thanks,
> Peter
>=20
> >
> > /hannes
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
> > | Hi Hannes,
> > |
> > | On 8/26/14 17:32 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
> > | >hi peter,
> > | >
> > | >operators want to assign node-tags as per router function (ABR, PE,
> core) and then
> > | >the LFA-selection becomes much easier to specify. - e.g.
> > | >- only pick a LFA that does not cross another PE router.
> > | >
> > | >similarily it is desirable for "LFA tunnel termination"
> > | >to put out a constraint which says
> > | >- only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'
> > |
> > | my point is that with the above approach you have to:
> > | 1. On candidate PQ nodes configure the tag X
> > | 2. on all other nodes configure "only pick a PQ neighbor which has no=
de
> tag
> > | 'X'"
> > |
> > | It's (2) which makes me feel uncomfortable, as it's a config to be ap=
plied
> > | to many nodes.
> > |
> > | If we instead define a capability bit which would mean "PQ candidate"=
,
> we
> > | would avoid (2).
> > |
> > | >
> > | >i found it always strange that we for TE (as an example for
> > | >constraining paths) we have got ways to tag links, but
> > | >not way to tag nodes - that draft aims to fix that.
> > |
> > | I'm not against tagging nodes as such. What worries me if we end up
> using
> > | node tags for signalling capabilities of node.
> > |
> > | thanks,
> > | Peter
> > |
> > | >
> > | >HTH,
> > | >
> > | >/hannes
> > | >
> > | >On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:30:26PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
> > | >| Hi Acee,
> > | >|
> > | >| On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > | >| >Hi Peter,
> > | >| >This is a valid concern and one that we=B9ve discussed previously=
 with
> > | >| >respect to routing behavior based on policies. I think that accep=
ting
> this
> > | >| >draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of
> capabilities
> > | >| >advertisement for popular applications.
> > | >|
> > | >| sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like "Controlling
> Remote LFA
> > | >| tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the best
> approach
> > | >| for.
> > | >|
> > | >| thanks,
> > | >| Peter
> > | >|
> > | >| >Thanks,
> > | >| >Acee
> > | >| >
> > | >| >On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"
>  wrote:
> > | >| >
> > | >| >>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > | >| >>>There are situations where node level policy is required and an
> OSPF
> > | >| >>>advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisemen=
t
> of
> > | >| >>>remote-LFA eligibility.
> > | >| >>
> > | >| >>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling
> capability
> > | >| >>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signa=
ling of
> > | >| >>the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that y=
ou have
> > | >| >>to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
> > | >| >>
> > | >| >>thanks,
> > | >| >>Peter
> > | >| >>
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>>Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this dra=
ft as
> an
> > | >| >>>OSPF WG document.
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>>Thanks,
> > | >| >>>Acee
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>>_______________________________________________
> > | >| >>>OSPF mailing list
> > | >| >>>OSPF@ietf.org
> > | >| >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>
> > | >| >>_______________________________________________
> > | >| >>OSPF mailing list
> > | >| >>OSPF@ietf.org
> > | >| >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> > | >| >
> > | >| >.
> > | >| >
> > | >|
> > | >| _______________________________________________
> > | >| OSPF mailing list
> > | >| OSPF@ietf.org
> > | >| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> > | >.
> > | >
> > |
> > .
> >
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Tue Aug 26 19:10:17 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D091A0349 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.868
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1PZrdry8mGtm for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75AA11A0351 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIT64466; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:09:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 03:09:57 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.204]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:09:50 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwKvK3WdFT8K/dkCarFJ74ODeo5vjtpBA
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:09:50 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2CE@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.134]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2CENKGEML512MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Ut3aFHttq2Eg5ldTnSMq_qHAfOw
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:10:06 -0000

--_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2CENKGEML512MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.

Xiaohu

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:30 AM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminato=
r

The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents =
 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement o=
f the global S-BFD discriminators.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.
Thanks,
Acee

--_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2CENKGEML512MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support.


 =
;


Xiaohu


 =
;








From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:30 AM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discr=
iminator






 




The BFD WG h=
as adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents  - =
;http://datatracke=
r.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/






Hence, we fe=
el it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement of the global=
 S-BFD discriminators. 






 <=
/o:p>






Please indic=
ate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF WG documen=
t. 






Thanks,=







Acee










--_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2CENKGEML512MBSchi_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 19:10:44 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E471A035D for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.868
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SpW2DFyEniZS for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B2E01A0357 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLU74411; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:10:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 03:10:38 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.204]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:10:31 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu 
To: Abhay Roy , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJgKaTjZxA11b0yaz1/fkHwifJvjtuMg
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:10:31 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2DA@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.134]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2DANKGEML512MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/kA5zZN6oc4eqdNkjB-cPaLAeJuQ
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 02:10:43 -0000

--_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2DANKGEML512MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support as a co-author.

Xiaohu

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abhay Roy
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:09 AM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiri=
ng it..

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.

Regards,
-Abhay
On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF'=
s

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domai=
n-wide". Any concerns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay




_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list

OSPF@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


--_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2DANKGEML512MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support as=
 a co-author.


 =
;


Xiaohu


 =
;








From:=
 OSPF [mailto:ospf-b=
ounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Abhay Roy

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:09 AM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-ad=
dress






 


=
This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiri=
ng it..




Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. 



Regards,

-Abhay




On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy=
 wrote:






[speaking as WG member]



Two comments..



1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.&q=
uot;. 

    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.=
e. for IPv4 AF's 



2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the
 scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns=
 with that? 



Regards,

-Abhay










_______________________________________________


OSPF mailing list


OSPF@ietf.org


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf



 








--_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082AB2DANKGEML512MBSchi_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 22:08:19 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5891A03D0 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.082
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w4l49Dildpok for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0992C1A031D for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLU85129; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:08:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:08:11 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.184]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:08:06 +0800
From: Lizhenbin 
To: Abhay Roy , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJgKTjboO7R6KUCEvKIVbx0ohZvj6D9m
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:08:06 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477E4@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com>,<53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.193.34.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477E4nkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/D-iNGrhOPaIUj5T9bx-1VXBDs1I
Subject: [OSPF] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFBvbGwgZm9yIFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRy?= =?gb2312?b?YWZ0LXh1LW9zcGYtcm91dGFibGUtaXAtYWRkcmVzcw==?=
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:08:17 -0000

--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477E4nkgeml506mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477E4nkgeml506mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable










Support.


 


Best Regards,


Robin


 


 




=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: OSPF [ospf-bounces@iet=
f.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED Abhay Roy [akr@cisco.com]

=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2014=C4=EA8=D4=C226=C8=D5 3:08

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: ospf@ietf.org

=D6=F7=CC=E2: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-=
ip-address








This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) re=
quiring it..




Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. 



Regards,

-Abhay




On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:




[speaking as WG member]



Two comments..



1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.&q=
uot;. 

    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.=
e. for IPv4 AF's 



2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the
 scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns=
 with that? 



Regards,

-Abhay




 


_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf















--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477E4nkgeml506mbxchi_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 22:09:15 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18CE1A03E5 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.082
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3U7DSMsSAKBc for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB811A03D0 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLU85190; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:09:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:09:10 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.184]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:09:05 +0800
From: Lizhenbin 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwKvK3WdFT8K/dkCarFJ74ODeo5vj6KEb
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:09:04 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477FE@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.193.34.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477FEnkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/iHyH6TtBlRFcgF14qciW0hczovo
Subject: [OSPF] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogUG9sbCBmb3IgV0cgQWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJh?= =?gb2312?b?ZnQtYmhhdGlhLW9zcGYtc2JmZC1kaXNjcmltaW5hdG9y?=
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:09:14 -0000

--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477FEnkgeml506mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477FEnkgeml506mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D082477FEnkgeml506mbxchi_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 22:15:13 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290711A03E5 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.082
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p2cJLs3M1hZL for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A60681A03D0 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIT75180; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:15:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:15:07 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.184]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:15:04 +0800
From: Lizhenbin 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvj6jtN
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:15:04 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D0824781A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.193.34.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D0824781Ankgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/wiRDA6VAEj88JeC8bVtDPgYly_Y
Subject: [OSPF] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogUG9sbCBmb3IgV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJh?= =?gb2312?b?ZnQtaGVnZGUtb3NwZi1ub2RlLWFkbWluLXRhZw==?=
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:15:11 -0000

--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D0824781Ankgeml506mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D0824781Ankgeml506mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable










Support as the co-author.


 


Best Regards,


Zhenbin(Robin)


 


 




=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: OSPF [ospf-bounces@iet=
f.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED Acee Lindem (acee) [acee@cisco.com]

=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2014=C4=EA8=D4=C226=C8=D5 5:18

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: ospf@ietf.org

=D6=F7=CC=E2: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-a=
dmin-tag










There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF a=
dvertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of remote-L=
FA eligibility.







Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as a=
n OSPF WG document. 







Thanks,


Acee 










--_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D0824781Ankgeml506mbxchi_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 23:40:35 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC881A0415 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.868
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t1nevz0wOhsS for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94DAC1A041F for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIT85946; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:40:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.39) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:40:18 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.81]) by SZXEMA407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:40:15 +0800
From: "Wunan (Eric)" 
To: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: Ac/BwYfOXtOAUgp0SvWiMzviqatVaA==
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:40:15 +0000
Message-ID: <0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060CD@szxema508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.111.87.25]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060CDszxema508mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/cAZmcvyiQT8Vep-BmmHeWuoWbHk
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:40:33 -0000

--_000_0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060CDszxema508mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.



Eric







From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abhay Roy

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:09 AM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address



This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiri=
ng it..



Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.



Regards,

-Abhay

On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:

[speaking as WG member]



Two comments..



1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".

    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF'=
s



2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domai=
n-wide". Any concerns with that?



Regards,

-Abhay









_______________________________________________



OSPF mailing list



OSPF@ietf.org>



https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


--_000_0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060CDszxema508mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support.

 


Eric


 


 


 


From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abh=
ay Roy


Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 20=
14 3:09 AM


To: ospf@ietf.org


Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG =
adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address


 


This is a simple document wi=
th a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it..

 


Please share your support or=
 objections in making it a WG document.


 


Regards,

-Abhay


On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay =
Roy wrote:


[speaking as WG member]=



 


Two comments..


 


1. Section 3 has this text -=
 "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".


    I believe=
, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's<=
/span>


 


2. Section 3 and 4 describes=
 the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personally don't see any real use ca=
use of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we have mechanisms to generate=
 routable IP address for those scopes
 already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be &quo=
t;MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns with that?


 


Regards,

-Abhay


 


 


 


 


____________________________=
___________________


 


OSPF mailing list=



 


OSPF@ietf.org<mailto:OSPF@ietf.org>


 


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


 






--_000_0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060CDszxema508mbxchi_--


From nobody Tue Aug 26 23:44:29 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8EC1A0415 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.868
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VfgOoodEeELk for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37DE41A041F for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BIT86270; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:44:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.35) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:44:24 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA508-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.81]) by SZXEMA403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:44:20 +0800
From: "Wunan (Eric)" 
To: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: Ac/BwhmBAnccVqi9S8e+j9JNfOqtzQ==
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:44:19 +0000
Message-ID: <0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060E0@szxema508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.111.87.25]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060E0szxema508mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/31-abjG0H6wCdkv0gObgsCmRbBM
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:44:28 -0000

--_000_0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060E0szxema508mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.



Eric







Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:18:09 +0000

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" >

To: "ospf@ietf.org" >

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of

         draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

Message-ID: >

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"



There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF advert=
ised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of remote-LFA el=
igibility.



Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.



Thanks,

Acee


--_000_0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060E0szxema508mbxchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support.

 


Eric


 


 


 


Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:18=
:09 +0000


From: "Acee Lindem (ace=
e)" <acee@cisco.com><=
/o:p>


To: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>


Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG =
adoption of


    &nbs=
p;    draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag


Message-ID: <D0212051.2116%acee@cisco.com>


Content-Type: text/plain; ch=
arset=3D"us-ascii"


 


There are situations where n=
ode level policy is required and an OSPF advertised admin tag simplifies th=
is. For example, advertisement of remote-LFA eligibility.=



 


Please indicate your support=
 or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF WG document.


 


Thanks,

Acee


 






--_000_0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A650368060E0szxema508mbxchi_--


From nobody Wed Aug 27 00:59:19 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F881A045B for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTAMD2NxGdjp for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0144.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEAE91A0484 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.24) by BY2PR05MB126.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:59:12 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.18]) by BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.80]) with mapi id 15.00.1015.018; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:59:12 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvkF24A
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:59:12 +0000
Message-ID: <2c61368e0f0f473c8f8eef29a65c4aa4@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.19]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0316567485
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(189002)(199003)(164054003)(377454003)(90102001)(66066001)(80022001)(85306004)(74662001)(74316001)(85852003)(76482001)(83072002)(81542001)(230783001)(101416001)(108616004)(81342001)(4396001)(74502001)(31966008)(92566001)(87936001)(107886001)(105586002)(99286002)(95666004)(19300405004)(77096002)(19625215002)(64706001)(20776003)(2656002)(77982001)(76576001)(46102001)(21056001)(86362001)(99396002)(79102001)(107046002)(16236675004)(19580395003)(33646002)(76176999)(83322001)(50986999)(54356999)(19580405001)(15202345003)(106356001)(106116001)(15975445006)(2501001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB126; H:BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2c61368e0f0f473c8f8eef29a65c4aa4BY2PR05MB127namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/0HMgjbF8nvqcSpbPyZYWMtU1xts
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:59:17 -0000

--_000_2c61368e0f0f473c8f8eef29a65c4aa4BY2PR05MB127namprd05pro_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support WG adoption as author.

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:48 AM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF advert=
ised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of remote-LFA el=
igibility.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.

Thanks,
Acee

--_000_2c61368e0f0f473c8f8eef29a65c4aa4BY2PR05MB127namprd05pro_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support WG adoption as au=
thor.


 <=
/p>





From: OSPF [=
mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:48 AM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-=
tag






 




There are situations where =
node level policy is required and an OSPF advertised admin tag simplifies t=
his. For example, advertisement of remote-LFA eligibility.






 





Please indicate your suppor=
t or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF WG document. 






 





Thanks,





Acee 








--_000_2c61368e0f0f473c8f8eef29a65c4aa4BY2PR05MB127namprd05pro_--


From nobody Wed Aug 27 01:04:53 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598A81A048C for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tNa26T37POOA for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0239.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.239]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9FEC1A0472 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.24) by BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:04:46 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.18]) by BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.80]) with mapi id 15.00.1015.018; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:04:46 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde 
To: Anton Smirnov , Peter Psenak , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJvih70AgACWOQCAAPpmEA==
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:04:46 +0000
Message-ID: <263b8130ebc249ccbbe81e3390a00823@BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com> <53FCBDDC.6000902@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FCBDDC.6000902@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.19]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0316567485
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(189002)(164054003)(51704005)(479174003)(377454003)(24454002)(199003)(13464003)(92566001)(46102001)(86362001)(81542001)(77096002)(90102001)(77982001)(81342001)(87936001)(4396001)(99396002)(83072002)(15975445006)(85852003)(79102001)(2656002)(76576001)(76482001)(33646002)(20776003)(107046002)(80022001)(66066001)(101416001)(85306004)(107886001)(108616004)(106356001)(21056001)(50986999)(83322001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(64706001)(74662001)(106116001)(31966008)(76176999)(230783001)(74502001)(99286002)(105586002)(74316001)(95666004)(54356999)(2501001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB127; H:BY2PR05MB127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/YkodJ1eFEAamhl5s2FnhzS81lC8
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:04:50 -0000

Agree with Anton that defining capability bits for each and every use-case =
that the operator comes up with and getting it
Standardized and get it implemented by each vendor is going to be a slow pr=
ocess. And we need a generic way of carrying node tags in protocols.

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anton Smirnov
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:33 PM
To: Peter Psenak; ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

    Hi Peter,
    the draft lists about 5 different *example* applications which COULD be=
 addressed by node admin tags. So if you take 1 particular possible scenari=
o out of the draft - you still have 4 possible applications.=20
Examples are there to demonstrate that admin tags is useful general tool, n=
ot to require the solution.
    Sure, each of possible scenarios can be solved by tailored solution.=20
But each tailored solution is required to go via IETF adoption and implemen=
tation by vendors. And indeed, in cases where tailored solution brings so m=
uch operational benefit that it warrants slow path of IETF adoption, featur=
e development by multiple vendors and network deployment
- it will be used and will kill desire to solve the problem with admin tags=
.
   And vice verse - tags (when widely supported) will facilitate rapid deve=
lopment and deployment of services which we otherwise can't (or
slow) to offer.


    As for your particular example - operator still has to go to each and e=
very device and enable Remote LFA on it. But we are not trying to solve thi=
s operational complexity with OSPF autoconfiguration. So it shouldn't be th=
at complex to enable acceptable node tag at the same time as enabling rLFA =
itself.

Anton


On 08/26/2014 10:05 AM, Peter Psenak wrote:
> On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF=20
>> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of=20
>> remote-LFA eligibility.
>
> my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling capability=20
> is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit signaling=20
> of the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The reason is that you=20
> have to configure the tag meaning on all receiving routers.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>>
>> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as=20
>> an OSPF WG document.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Wed Aug 27 04:10:30 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F201A064A for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QXKAIsD0C4j8 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CBEB1A0643 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-33-53fd657265a3
Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2A.2F.25146.2756DF35; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:58:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:10:22 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri 
To: Abhay Roy , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Working Group last call on "OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration" - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPwJRqa9q2f0tIFEeJWQsCqfL975vkOGdA
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:10:22 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F364087@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: <53FB83B7.2010201@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FB83B7.2010201@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiG5R6t9gg5/7hSwOH5zFZtFy7x67 A5PHlN8bWT2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJWxZu0l1oInnBUfNx1haWD8yN7FyMkhIWAi 8XnSdShbTOLCvfVsXYxcHEICRxklWg8dZoZwljNKfD12mRWkik1AT+Lj1J9gHSICdhJrZjUw gdjCAuUS51efYYaIV0g07DkOZRtJtB55B9bLIqAqcf8YxGZeAV+Jt3tngtlCAhoSc+7OYAGx OQU0JV6f2QcWZwS66PupNWDzmQXEJW49mc8EcamAxJI955khbFGJl4//sULYShJzXl9jhqjX kViw+xMbhK0tsWzha2aIvYISJ2c+YZnAKDoLydhZSFpmIWmZhaRlASPLKkaO0uLUstx0I8NN jMB4OCbB5riDccEny0OMAhyMSjy8C6L+BAuxJpYVV+YeYpTmYFES59WsnhcsJJCeWJKanZpa kFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgTGhc/E1uWnrj3Jocbt6ri676HxL49mOAzYtOgU6XWxzOloTjpTx n/96hKuYw/DI/8NOt7YvFd32w7ZZWLV06r4N3xJ7Q55tiWoKWvGwaSrj1Tss5Tu23NpyorHz 9skzcuG5Txn79uVEXnsZfjlzpanAktMd0ZszZ1p+6Qz8dPvV/Zk55Zw/mKcqsRRnJBpqMRcV JwIAlg47a2gCAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ilrm0t1trcGVgQxvcX-VWrODfKc
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Working Group last call on "OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration" - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-07.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:10:29 -0000

Support.
Obviously well written and well though through. I see this is the anchor do=
cument for ISIS.

Nits:
1.  Security can be tricky and it depends on the deployment situation for a=
uto configs. Though Section 7 address this aspect as part of security consi=
deration.  =20
     It might good idea to discuss as sub-section in the main draft and lea=
ve section 7 for any implications of key changes, security algos etc define=
d.
2.  I see Section REF is still pointing to 6506.
--
Uma C.

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abhay Roy
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:43 AM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Working Group last call on "OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration" - dr=
aft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-07.txt

All,

We are starting a working group last call on the subject document. Draft ha=
s been stable for a while, and only recent change was one of the author's e=
mail address ;-).

WGLC will end at Noon PST on 8th Sept 2014.

Please review the document and send any final comments prior to the WGLC de=
adline.

Regards,
-Abhay

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Wed Aug 27 04:15:44 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDA31A034D for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id edQ_eme9cAqg for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 858C71A0218 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-85-53fd66ab259a
Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9C.3F.25146.CA66DF35; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:03:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:15:36 -0400
From: Uma Chunduri 
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" , Hannes Gredler 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
Thread-Index: AQHPwKoSGbQFoOONyUaUf4QhM2C3GJviyswAgABe74CAAAyMAIAAETWAgAADSwCAAARTgIAAC3sAgABWu4CAAJ0TMA==
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:15:36 +0000
Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3640B4@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References:  <53FC3FD8.1000704@cisco.com>  <53FC9A02.4080401@cisco.com> <20140826153201.GA6179@juniper.net> <53FCAB34.7020602@cisco.com> <20140826155917.GA6346@juniper.net> <53FCB876.7030408@cisco.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn+6atL/BBp13RSw2/NnIbtF/7wmb Rcu9e+wWO3a3szmweEz5vZHVY8mSn0we15uusgcwR3HZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlNC7YylbQYlhx 8swd5gbGE6pdjJwcEgImEvvubmGEsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCUUWJ3zwMoZzmjxOm3x9hAqtgE 9CQ+Tv3JDpIQEWhnlDh+7zgTSIJZQFnicddqoCIODmEBb4kHm9VAwiICPhIPz+1mBwmLCGRJ XPprARJmEVCVuDfzKAuIzSvgK7H+xUKoXeeYJJZ1PAJLcAIlOns7wPYyAl33/dQaqFXiEree zGeCuFpAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/WCFsJYk5r68xQ9TrSdyYOoUNwtaWWLbwNTPEYkGJkzOfsExg FJuFZOwsJC2zkLTMQtKygJFlFSNHaXFqWW66keEmRmAUHZNgc9zBuOCT5SFGAQ5GJR7eBVF/ goVYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ82pWzwsWEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnVwMg7fdtFZeeO dPX1XsE+oV1320re/f+feGXetxfxKw03LCv2MH99We3p0uh0XevlSo7ZZetcJjrXZ6f8Ksp9 0uP300bjBeeXc7zLn1o08F0os5y+QzJoXbhOwp+i3KyZ92+vDq6MMONa8rH7Jt/s40tnKvCx zdZ9/yVI7mBQNYe0C3+3aOuLmUosxRmJhlrMRcWJAJl3442DAgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/fgSdD7v9amxS1niH1ifhIZJqSfA
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:15:40 -0000

Les, While I know you are big fan of generic tags (for e.g. RFC 5130 link l=
evel!)  to solve everything the discussion I see here is very useful.

> We don't have to come to a conclusion on that issue in this thread - nor =
should it preclude making this a WG item - but it is definitely an importan=
t issue to be discussed.

+1

--
Uma C.


-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsbe=
rg)
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:51 PM
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak); Hannes Gredler
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag

I support making this draft a WG item - but I do think a much more complete=
 discussion regarding the tradeoffs between using node tags vs capability i=
dentifiers needs to be included - if for no other reason than if/when this =
draft were to become an RFC we would have two mechanisms and it  is not so =
clear when it is more appropriate to use one over another.

We don't have to come to a conclusion on that issue in this thread - nor sh=
ould it preclude making this a WG item - but it is definitely an important =
issue to be discussed.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> (ppsenak)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:40 AM
> To: Hannes Gredler
> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of=20
> draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin- tag
>=20
> Hi Hannes,
>=20
> On 8/26/14 17:59 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
> > hi peter,
> >
> > understood - so what about simply reserving a certain range of the=20
> > tag
> space
> > for well-known applications (+IANA registry etc.) such that for 2)=20
> > we can avoid distributing policies ?
>=20
> we have an existing mechanism for advertising capabilities - RFC4970,=20
> section 2.3 and 2.4. We can reserve a bit for each well-known application=
.
>=20
> thanks,
> Peter
>=20
> >
> > /hannes
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
> > | Hi Hannes,
> > |
> > | On 8/26/14 17:32 , Hannes Gredler wrote:
> > | >hi peter,
> > | >
> > | >operators want to assign node-tags as per router function (ABR,=20
> > | >PE,
> core) and then
> > | >the LFA-selection becomes much easier to specify. - e.g.
> > | >- only pick a LFA that does not cross another PE router.
> > | >
> > | >similarily it is desirable for "LFA tunnel termination"
> > | >to put out a constraint which says
> > | >- only pick a PQ neighbor which has node tag 'X'
> > |
> > | my point is that with the above approach you have to:
> > | 1. On candidate PQ nodes configure the tag X 2. on all other nodes=20
> > | configure "only pick a PQ neighbor which has node
> tag
> > | 'X'"
> > |
> > | It's (2) which makes me feel uncomfortable, as it's a config to be=20
> > | applied to many nodes.
> > |
> > | If we instead define a capability bit which would mean "PQ=20
> > | candidate",
> we
> > | would avoid (2).
> > |
> > | >
> > | >i found it always strange that we for TE (as an example for=20
> > | >constraining paths) we have got ways to tag links, but not way to=20
> > | >tag nodes - that draft aims to fix that.
> > |
> > | I'm not against tagging nodes as such. What worries me if we end=20
> > | up
> using
> > | node tags for signalling capabilities of node.
> > |
> > | thanks,
> > | Peter
> > |
> > | >
> > | >HTH,
> > | >
> > | >/hannes
> > | >
> > | >On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 04:30:26PM +0200, Peter Psenak wrote:
> > | >| Hi Acee,
> > | >|
> > | >| On 8/26/14 15:45 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > | >| >Hi Peter,
> > | >| >This is a valid concern and one that we=B9ve discussed=20
> > | >| >previously with respect to routing behavior based on policies.=20
> > | >| >I think that accepting
> this
> > | >| >draft as a WG document should not preclude standardization of
> capabilities
> > | >| >advertisement for popular applications.
> > | >|
> > | >| sure. Just that the draft mentions applications like=20
> > | >| "Controlling
> Remote LFA
> > | >| tunnel termination", which I'm not sure the node tag is the=20
> > | >| best
> approach
> > | >| for.
> > | >|
> > | >| thanks,
> > | >| Peter
> > | >|
> > | >| >Thanks,
> > | >| >Acee
> > | >| >
> > | >| >On 8/26/14, 4:05 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"
>  wrote:
> > | >| >
> > | >| >>On 8/25/14 23:18 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > | >| >>>There are situations where node level policy is required and=20
> > | >| >>>an
> OSPF
> > | >| >>>advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example,=20
> > | >| >>>advertisement
> of
> > | >| >>>remote-LFA eligibility.
> > | >| >>
> > | >| >>my concern with the generic use of admin tags for signaling
> capability
> > | >| >>is that it's operationally unfriendly compared to explicit=20
> > | >| >>signaling of the capability (e.g. using a bit or a TLV). The=20
> > | >| >>reason is that you have to configure the tag meaning on all rece=
iving routers.
> > | >| >>
> > | >| >>thanks,
> > | >| >>Peter
> > | >| >>
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>>Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this=20
> > | >| >>>draft as
> an
> > | >| >>>OSPF WG document.
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>>Thanks,
> > | >| >>>Acee
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>>_______________________________________________
> > | >| >>>OSPF mailing list
> > | >| >>>OSPF@ietf.org
> > | >| >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> > | >| >>>
> > | >| >>
> > | >| >>_______________________________________________
> > | >| >>OSPF mailing list
> > | >| >>OSPF@ietf.org
> > | >| >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> > | >| >
> > | >| >.
> > | >| >
> > | >|
> > | >| _______________________________________________
> > | >| OSPF mailing list
> > | >| OSPF@ietf.org
> > | >| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> > | >.
> > | >
> > |
> > .
> >
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Wed Aug 27 07:21:47 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C354F1A0702 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.168
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HLH2VG_-Qyid for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C105F1A06FE for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6227; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409149303; x=1410358903; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=SNBpAVCIn2el4CWiYXx4u8JzHAgqcvPpLHZezhDc6sE=; b=ddRTvAq1wsvC1HvgN5T0i77dHMEUOpppBEeIjBE44XmRxIkmcMWcIVEt t3/BrXvaMRJ9+tioN/zQ6xtRDsn+D17GTes2nzeUA7Zh2UwIE/dNAgQl1 /K07Kt71phKxayLebePMIltx1N6VA9cBB66UiquDs9PWESiBul716CYFn g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwFADPo/VOtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABbgkcjI1NXBLIcmCOBZIdMAYEQFneEAwEBAQQtXAIBCBEEAQELHQcyFAkIAgQBEgiIOgEMvwoXjxs3AYMvgR0FjxuCFIQtiFWTPoNebIFIgQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,411,1406592000";  d="scan'208,217";a="350705598"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2014 14:21:42 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7RELf6L018067 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:21:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:21:40 -0500
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
Thread-Index: AQHPwKvK3WdFT8K/dkCarFJ74ODeo5vkgn+Q
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:21:39 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.86.243.66]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3BB117xmbalnx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/2H58OV9vdwaO5ahN_AQZOkqy-gI
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:21:45 -0000

--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3BB117xmbalnx01ciscoc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes I have read and support the progress of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discrimi=
nator as an OSPF WG document.

Thanks!

-Nobo

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 5:30 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminato=
r

The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents =
 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF advertisement o=
f the global S-BFD discriminators.

Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSP=
F WG document.
Thanks,
Acee

--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3BB117xmbalnx01ciscoc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Yes I have read and suppo=
rt the progress of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator as an OSPF WG docum=
ent.


 <=
/p>

Thanks!=



 <=
/p>

-Nobo

 <=
/p>







From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 5:30 PM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discr=
iminator






 




The BFD WG has adopted all =
the seamless BFD base documents as WG documents  - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/b=
fd/documents/






Hence, we feel it is logica=
l to support this work with OSPF advertisement of the global S-BFD discrimi=
nators. 






 





Please indicate your suppor=
t or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF WG document. 






Thanks,





Acee










--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3BB117xmbalnx01ciscoc_--


From nobody Wed Aug 27 09:55:54 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734371A0009 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6qAbJcOQ-ZvM for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7B2F1A0B02 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1870; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409158550; x=1410368150; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=EpciVQgWD4g0vX/fHfLDuNzVZNLZoL6pp2lN4f8rMak=; b=O81mHLVL0OgO7EsyJt5KJ4eRy64btVxVfkWan6H/lnRvYN+Ye6dUFtgx E7U6rTWNkX8ZfLSMgheI9lClY1e+u6sYI7915prN3RGEsqRFhdH3u6+db N8NwKaKYzoGPeE7Z1M5LejqN71oDIA7XjHcNrzebCtM00XwWgggWkBCGq o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAE8M/lOtJV2U/2dsb2JhbABbgw1TVwTMGgqHTwGBEhZ3hAMBAQEEAQEBaxcEAgEIEQQBASQEBycLFAkIAgQBEohCDb85EwSOahEBVwaERgWKboZBiymVGoIYgUZsgQ85gQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,412,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="72881021"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2014 16:55:50 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7RGtn7k020148 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:55:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:55:48 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
To: Uma Chunduri , "Abhay Roy (akr)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Working Group last call on "OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration" - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPwJRrFyy58p0BNkS3JVhX0CSCnpvkoaUAgAAdcwA=
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:55:47 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <53FB83B7.2010201@cisco.com> <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F364087@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F364087@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <0CCCAC7EEF56DD40A62A237D06621A7A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/f7STB1c-cgAejiZgng9_Vf9TUjE
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Working Group last call on "OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration" - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-07.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:55:52 -0000

Hi Uma,=20

Thanks for the review and support. See inline.

On 8/27/14, 7:10 AM, "Uma Chunduri"  wrote:

>Support.
>Obviously well written and well though through. I see this is the anchor
>document for ISIS.
>
>Nits:
>1.  Security can be tricky and it depends on the deployment situation for
>auto configs. Though Section 7 address this aspect as part of security
>consideration.  =20
>     It might good idea to discuss as sub-section in the main draft and
>leave section 7 for any implications of key changes, security algos etc
>defined.

I can do this and will refer to the new section from section 7. After some
consideration, I see your point.  When a reader gets to the =B3Security
Considerations=B2 section, they expect the functional specification portion
of the document to have already been completed.

>2.  I see Section REF is still pointing to 6506.

I will fix this.=20

Thanks,
Acee=20

>--
>Uma C.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abhay Roy
>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:43 AM
>To: ospf@ietf.org
>Subject: [OSPF] Working Group last call on "OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration" -
>draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-07.txt
>
>All,
>
>We are starting a working group last call on the subject document. Draft
>has been stable for a while, and only recent change was one of the
>author's email address ;-).
>
>WGLC will end at Noon PST on 8th Sept 2014.
>
>Please review the document and send any final comments prior to the WGLC
>deadline.
>
>Regards,
>-Abhay
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Wed Aug 27 14:35:31 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2771A0158 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.168
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id io2KoFgGEnGd for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F0051A0002 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6611; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409175330; x=1410384930; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=5Poc+71nRH4jrY0TqtzrXbv+hbnCsq32aRRqqeCvcPc=; b=FAKsFEN/PRV+bz47bQTCG1VwVizH5X4qMpEB2O57XYi7bSAltdq3jBp2 5fAzw9E46ROP5jF2GYLm9XESC2OsBrjeUD3tyHoUWx1XU+73AJSbL2BiU FUKqLdn1Woas9OL3TnXrywUXco+VZAz8apJ8nab6DqIX/3fhwlDb2TRzD c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFAB1O/lOtJA2J/2dsb2JhbABbgkcjI1NXBMwaAQmHTwGBEhZ3hAMBAQEEAQEBKkEbAgEIEQQBAQsdBycLFAkIAgQBEgiIOgEMv1gTBI51Ji0KAYMvgR0FjxuCFKBDg15sgQdBgQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,414,1406592000";  d="scan'208,217";a="347697346"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2014 21:35:30 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7RLZSf2021187 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:35:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([fe80::8c1c:7b85:56de:ffd1]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:35:28 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" 
To: "Abhay Roy (akr)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJf7+X+HQsycHE+NqAuilRkJo5vk/GTA
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:35:27 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.21.82.119]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23F0045Fxmbalnx02ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/3U8XSoSah1I0vhs7uvfwI6vJMv0
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:35:30 -0000

--_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23F0045Fxmbalnx02ciscoc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.

    Les

From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abhay Roy (akr)
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:09 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiri=
ng it..

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.

Regards,
-Abhay
On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF'=
s

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domai=
n-wide". Any concerns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay




_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list

OSPF@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


--_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23F0045Fxmbalnx02ciscoc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Support.


 <=
/p>

    Les


 <=
/p>







From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Abhay Roy (akr)

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:09 PM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-ad=
dress






 


This is a simple docu=
ment with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it..




Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. 



Regards,

-Abhay




On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:





[speaking as WG member]



Two comments..



1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.&q=
uot;. 

    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.=
e. for IPv4 AF's 



2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the
 scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns=
 with that? 



Regards,

-Abhay










_______________________________________________


OSPF mailing list


OSPF@ietf.org


https://www.iet=
f.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf




 








--_000_F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F23F0045Fxmbalnx02ciscoc_--


From nobody Wed Aug 27 16:39:11 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DED11A02BB for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -115.168
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rlOk0vtEfEBv for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D4111A02A3 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7519; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409182745; x=1410392345; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=WdfiqpDPNmLy422NP+jHhaW4nf3LJMRsEDe7MAYXG3U=; b=bRV66G7f68HAKethPrHodySTTPJRJyb/5E7+mSC3+JYNQbhyglwDyzaP t7R/E7j542j0q3vmaa9UnP9YLHFEo1+5pqTwVHigZWxsDxANOwfmVjvLJ SUZ+I+fvqXtU4B3nHZYws1rU9vEt8fmaVjlhcmrRUYzekfM2fqjOAX2lU c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFAKVr/lOtJA2F/2dsb2JhbABbgkcjI1NXBMwaAQmHTwGBFBZ3hAMBAQEEAQEBKkEbAgEIEQQBAQsdBycLFAkIAgQBEgiIOgEMv14TBI51Ji0KAYMvgR0FjxuCFKBDg15sgQdBgQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,414,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="72978457"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2014 23:39:05 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7RNd3qG011890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:39:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:39:03 -0500
From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" 
To: "Abhay Roy (akr)" , "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
Thread-Index: AQHPwJf7kU/vLZ3UrkGtq9KR7hMf/JvlHhYg
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:39:01 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.86.243.66]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3BB912xmbalnx01ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/kkF2e_8zQol9xnYmGTVLYZV2njA
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:39:09 -0000

--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3BB912xmbalnx01ciscoc_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have read draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address and support its progress as a=
n OSPF WG document.

Thanks!

-Nobo


From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abhay Roy (akr)
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:09 PM
To: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address

This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiri=
ng it..

Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.

Regards,
-Abhay
On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
[speaking as WG member]

Two comments..

1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF'=
s

2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST be domai=
n-wide". Any concerns with that?

Regards,
-Abhay




_______________________________________________

OSPF mailing list

OSPF@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3BB912xmbalnx01ciscoc_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











I have read draft-xu-ospf=
-routable-ip-address and support its progress as an OSPF WG document.<=
/o:p>


 <=
/p>

Thanks!=



 <=
/p>

-Nobo

 <=
/p>

 <=
/p>







From:=
 OSPF [mailto:ospf-b=
ounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Abhay Roy (akr)

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:09 PM

To: ospf@ietf.org

Subject: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-ad=
dress






 


This is a simple docu=
ment with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD) requiring it..




Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document. 



Regards,

-Abhay




On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:





[speaking as WG member]



Two comments..



1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.&q=
uot;. 

    I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.=
e. for IPv4 AF's 



2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I personal=
ly don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link) since we=
 have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes already. =
So I would suggest we limit the
 scope of this document to be "MUST be domain-wide". Any concerns=
 with that? 



Regards,

-Abhay










_______________________________________________


OSPF mailing list


OSPF@ietf.org


https://www.iet=
f.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf




 








--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3BB912xmbalnx01ciscoc_--


From nobody Wed Aug 27 23:52:51 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7C31A047B for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.22
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybKhTQeASK1r for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0CFE1A040E for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.43.66.140] (194.163.249.24) by linfreserv.linfre (Axigen) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 217998; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:52:37 +0200
Message-ID: <53FED1B4.8020202@linfre.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:52:36 +0200
From: Karsten Thomann 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ospf@ietf.org
References:  <784545c5caf4452cb2bdfc70fff2418d@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <784545c5caf4452cb2bdfc70fff2418d@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
X-AxigenSpam-Level: 5
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/WOWlOG1XP96P2cJXMbZCKsV1ZK8
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:52:49 -0000

Support

It eases the transition to ipv6 and avoids running two protocols without 
yet enabled but planned IPv6.

Am 25.08.2014 23:57, schrieb Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang:
> I read the draft and support its adoption.
>
> Jeffrey
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:39 PM
>> To: Ing-Wher Chen; ospf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG adoption---draft-chen-ospf-transition-to-ospfv3?
>>
>> Hi Helen,
>> As an author, I would certainly support this work. I think it is clearly
>> in the OSPF WG¹s best interest to facilitate migration to a single
>> version. When that happens will be dependent on numerous factors
>> including
>> requirements, deployments, and how well we facilitate it.
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> On 7/22/14, 8:53 PM, "Ing-Wher Chen"  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'd like to ask if the working group would adopt and help improve and
>>> refine
>>> the following draft:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> This document describes a mechanism to transport OSPfv3 over IPv4.
>>> The mechanism allows devices to migrate to OSPFv3 first, which would
>> help
>>> with transition to IPv6 later.
>>>
>>> The latest -01 version addresses an earlier question by including
>>> an IPv4-only use case in which deployed devices cannot communicate
>>> in IPv6 but would benefit from using the mechanism proposed in this
>> draft
>>> to transition to OSPFv3 for now.  Until all devices can communicate
>> using
>>> IPv6,
>>> consolidating to OSPFv3 can still reduce operational complexity and
>> cost.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Helen
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


From nobody Thu Aug 28 00:19:27 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FDD1A06B0 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.219
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tPTBoN9HQStE for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E4481A06A1 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.43.66.140] (194.163.249.24) by linfreserv.linfre (Axigen) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 0A0C09; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:19:16 +0200
Message-ID: <53FED7F4.20401@linfre.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:19:16 +0200
From: Karsten Thomann 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030905000105000307040803"
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
X-AxigenSpam-Level: 5
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/m6L2HOShENwANBnBXX4g1iXxukM
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG Adoption of draft-bhatia-ospf-sbfd-discriminator
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:19:26 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030905000105000307040803
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've read the draft and support adoption

Am 25.08.2014 23:30, schrieb Acee Lindem (acee):
> The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as WG 
> documents  - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/
> Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF 
> advertisement of the global S-BFD discriminators.
>
> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as 
> an OSPF WG document.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


--------------030905000105000307040803
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


  
    
  
  
    
I've read the draft and support
      adoption

      

      Am 25.08.2014 23:30, schrieb Acee Lindem (acee):

    

    

      
      
The BFD WG has adopted all the seamless BFD base documents as
        WG documents  - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd/documents/

      
Hence, we feel it is logical to support this work with OSPF
        advertisement of the global S-BFD discriminators. 

      


      

      
Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this
        draft as an OSPF WG document. 

      
Thanks,

      
Acee

      

      

      

      
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


    

    

  


--------------030905000105000307040803--


From nobody Thu Aug 28 01:12:37 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9591A0722 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.219
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QTa4MEgL2SBW for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linfre.de (linfre.de [83.151.26.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 632B51A0AD5 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.43.66.140] (194.163.249.24) by linfreserv.linfre (Axigen) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 36A207; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:12:21 +0200
Message-ID: <53FEE464.7040200@linfre.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:12:20 +0200
From: Karsten Thomann 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ospf@ietf.org
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050900040405070600030400"
X-AXIGEN-DK-Result: No records
DomainKey-Status: no signature
X-AxigenSpam-Level: 5
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/n6vmelL6s3jQ3uOMrMdcxPqF1xo
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:12:35 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050900040405070600030400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I support the adoption of the draft.

Am 25.08.2014 23:18, schrieb Acee Lindem (acee):
> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF 
> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of 
> remote-LFA eligibility.
>
> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as 
> an OSPF WG document.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


--------------050900040405070600030400
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


  
    
  
  
    
I support the adoption of the draft.

      

      Am 25.08.2014 23:18, schrieb Acee Lindem (acee):

    

    

      
      
There are situations where node level policy is required and
        an OSPF advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example,
        advertisement of remote-LFA eligibility.

      


      

      
Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this
        draft as an OSPF WG document. 

      


      

      
Thanks,

      
Acee 

      

      

      

      
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


    

    

  


--------------050900040405070600030400--


From nobody Thu Aug 28 06:23:35 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5301A040D for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Hor2AF0ZIsE for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C74AC1A0402 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1512; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409232208; x=1410441808; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=AYXFE7vCPPQfRYdL1tWofmDZTDYngyXaUsRL6F6wmNs=; b=IiPffwiwuyipVVQA1g42xZ/2YZ3YVysFfduCn6Oql3nz4IlKM54JoW+6 rgmzNrFP8hLbidcxieJ1RPktIPyOnHd0scaQTE6JHv+rjxIDEZ4CzT7iQ PhWqSib+LxfqZhxZbERZ+PXVA3wrpqEW7v9qldspPF552yFVcXGvD9CcT 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AigFAAIt/1OtJA2H/2dsb2JhbABbgw1TUwQEzCmHTQGBGRZ3hAQBAQR3EgIBCEYyGwEGAwIEEwmIOQgFvw4Xj1OETAWKboZBhC6GfYFbk0KDXmwBgUeBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,418,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="73125417"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2014 13:23:18 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7SDNIdA023917 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:23:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.175]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:23:18 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
To: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPwjymTnWFdzSNf0Sczr5/PUCtv5vmEsAA
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:23:17 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20140827211949.28144.95419.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140827211949.28144.95419.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/LjVvWSPEnVUFJbfyrfSgUB2Llak
Subject: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-08.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:23:31 -0000

This version addresses Uma=B9s WG last call comments and add an
acknowledgement of another one of the implementations.
Thanks,
Acee

On 8/27/14, 5:19 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" 
wrote:

>
>A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-08.txt
>has been successfully submitted by Acee Lindem and posted to the
>IETF repository.
>
>Name:		draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig
>Revision:	08
>Title:		OSPFv3 Auto-Configuration
>Document date:	2014-08-27
>Group:		ospf
>Pages:		19
>URL:           =20
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-08.t
>xt
>Status:        =20
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig/
>Htmlized:      =20
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-08
>Diff:          =20
>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-08
>
>Abstract:
>   OSPFv3 is a candidate for deployments in environments where auto-
>   configuration is a requirement.  One such environment is the IPv6
>   home network where users expect to simply plug in a router and have
>   it automatically use OSPFv3 for intra-domain routing.  This document
>   describes the necessary mechanisms for OSPFv3 to be self-configuring.
>
>                 =20
>       =20
>
>
>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
>


From nobody Sat Aug 30 05:52:11 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB531A89FF for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CPA2L4X6RDmN for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BA471A89FD for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id tr6so4171571ieb.28 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ecV+3D3ZZRemdaYHbQYGKFxn3anlt+VV2gdHaN12IRs=; b=xSJTQwa4xc0VIGuJJWh63xeqGV0cz0k87kcIhJNEoAN2T6TjTm+IL2E7tVOr9sTbWX dEJYLGq5KCMG3VTZH0U9Fot53hi5/8ITYMt1hZ2o2V8JWZ/UXNm/RmW3Dj9gKIHpqq76 phznBh0epZtgEsNTrUQechj5eSmkTovBm46dFqcQJ8nM/lJvRlddu3A8qiYzJBuzvhgF 2bwrI2+1klqoi1rutSKRxHEcfRZAUIDShSgCprH2zTWgYyGvwBFxi5am1A4j/y+Bo83q 5StB/Q9dxa56r7XoxzNVfkUQKTH8B+T+CxDXvhAj5ufXd7caGav0wxKO3IUzIOdYsn0p 8w6g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.41.65 with SMTP id d1mr10342640igl.23.1409403128018; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.89.232 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:22:07 +0530
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ass_QJq4pAuwRVl29yjkLTgOK4g
Message-ID: 
From: Dhruv Dhody 
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/8dY59F4_92I-FcEb8Ipfya4K59U
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:52:10 -0000

Hi,

I have read the document and I support it for WG adoption.

I have following comments, that can be handled later

(1) Section 4.1
OLD:

   The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as
   the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
   [RFC3630].

   The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
   (TLV) triplets.  The format of each TLV is:

NEW:

   As per [RFC4970], the format of the TLVs within the body of an RI
LSA is the same as
   the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
   [RFC3630].

   The RI LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
   (TLV) triplets.  The format of the per-node administrative tag TLV is:

END

Also, it should be stated
- if are more than one instance of this TLV in RI LSA are allowed.
- Minimum one tag must be present in the TLV
- What happens if the implementation does not know the Interpretation
of the tag value

(2) It should be explicitly stated that - No IANA registry is required
to store the meaning or interpretation of.the tag values.

(3) Backward compatibility - few lines may be added to state that as
per [RFC4970], unknown TLV would be silently ignored.

Nits
- Avoid using reference in abstract
- Expand LFA on first use
- Administrative Tag TLV or 'per-node Administrative Tag' : consistent
naming through the document would be nice

Regards,
Dhruv


On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:
> There are situations where node level policy is required and an OSPF
> advertised admin tag simplifies this. For example, advertisement of
> remote-LFA eligibility.
>
> Please indicate your support or objections to adopting this draft as an OSPF
> WG document.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>


From nobody Sat Aug 30 06:00:47 2014
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2476F1A8A0C for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CyjGd1JXhAOj for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C04F11A89FF for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hn18so3862835igb.5 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zAYXgm+JKDUpBncVb6UE1lMSHhN4i4zSxmNNU54qP14=; b=cUx29e+VtOrU51PvJYl0bjmzSy1Xy/gSHMSQNu8pCu3ZS3OOHK26WZEsSbqm5yaIOV lsKMGLgY0hjotvUME0+BWr2c/8asKg2cgIFyONXq9GnFumXTdARCkhTQLWFtzzUIbvpw X5OKHrSBZY7qRQG7nT+hc9LxKRYW42LeOsX26M1fIQN4z6fDkoNYJgs9ere4FSqGj4Qp lPJdRadSZns1CGfsrWl8ngsaBrUeAr5kYnCfY+WXUkB6riyNbM6RCJWlFQ+YiaMiZvh1 aKn2nzsPmxPCm5+XFPwCdDAJ+uoE27VxGl9Z1jMMQ4Vz9DDOckm3e1xBFNcLMGD0NXnk B4jQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.84.9 with SMTP id j9mr1105787icl.60.1409403644238; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.89.232 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
References: <53FB8718.1090003@cisco.com> <53FB89B0.2040407@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:30:44 +0530
X-Google-Sender-Auth: bHnrzIbAzK2ESpUUOE4eh398Dx0
Message-ID: 
From: Dhruv Dhody 
To: Abhay Roy 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/I3DgMV5wOANK7DjN8FCjlhHPudg
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Poll for WG adoption of draft-xu-ospf-routable-ip-address
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:00:46 -0000

Hi,

I have read this I.D., and support its adoption.

Dhruv

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Abhay Roy  wrote:
> This is a simple document with a few strong drivers (ELC and S-BFD)
> requiring it..
>
> Please share your support or objections in making it a WG document.
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
> On 8/25/14, 11:57 AM, Abhay Roy wrote:
>
> [speaking as WG member]
>
> Two comments..
>
> 1. Section 3 has this text - "This TLV is only applicable to OSPFv2.".
>     I believe, this should also be applicable to RFC5838, i.e. for IPv4 AF's
>
> 2. Section 3 and 4 describes the scope as SHOULD be domain-wide. I
> personally don't see any real use cause of any lessor scope (Area or Link)
> since we have mechanisms to generate routable IP address for those scopes
> already. So I would suggest we limit the scope of this document to be "MUST
> be domain-wide". Any concerns with that?
>
> Regards,
> -Abhay
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>