From nobody Wed Apr 1 23:40:12 2015 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 9A1E41A88E3 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 23:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.177 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_82=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 nO-7Bmm4jBsv for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 23:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 330AA1B2B28 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 23:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wibgn9 with SMTP id gn9so93369274wib.1 for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 23:40:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=rqNvZ61dCe9l3yofTioEOG3nRhXN/mXUjeva3qY83xE=; b=H5PUvkws1WmMipnJBjhOwDIFNNHXeprOa7o7VXEv+HSIRkHyaYQr8d7tgzHeUYGW7t ArD7MsCuKmvb8TytraQ0Lxd9GCXlBrBFC4DO5dDpfSjmXPN0g4Fm3G3FXMwXQXZdTvXP PQsLY8bgkHgBNsTcXDceBWS3bymFzJ7NqLKOL2DDDL//L10kdTdo5cvU0hg9EdliJF8I A8FTaJktrp8oU057DI0S0vVHWbgAPHV2FEcDT3nGCEySXS8HMfnnvFAeC9QIR+tcXiW2 Xa1ZHmToI8sCDTmfW4/u/LVjOWkvudctwd6Y/JQ+/miRjdTMMGzFZI460hGKb8TxeCZC wYLw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1TcDlamgdvDpn0Gf0RY98vylS6gfQzMHjRd0cvwQ12BxU2nsqQNv9iN00Yxq/QWMWkeDSd2/FN+2BneWQqSR0xoli5KuTLsT/1qdZlTEC/QkTzbpevCKUvG+3bYmlzWzHE9L4jndxBgBWdA9bV/fKAyCj1CYfY2RoCKzr4eLsouui2aX64tDamcBavmemi1J0I1K8 X-Received: by 10.180.214.99 with SMTP id nz3mr21914222wic.82.1427956805886; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 23:40:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Santanu Kar References: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> <551AB98F.9050008@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <551AB98F.9050008@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKOYGI60YUwd117EWSBze/2xwaHtAL312R0m6Wa7QA= Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 12:09:49 +0530 Message-ID: To: Peter Psenak , ospf@ietf.org, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135e9a82b7b880512b81aed Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 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, 02 Apr 2015 06:40:11 -0000 --001a1135e9a82b7b880512b81aed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 RE: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 Hi Peter Please find my responses inline. Regards Santanu -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com ] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:43 PM To: Santanu Kar; ospf@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; cfilsfil@cisco.com; hannes@juniper.net; rob.shakir@bt.com; wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Subject: Re: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 Santanu, On 3/31/15 15:20 , Santanu Kar wrote: > Hi Authors > > I think last mail was a bit long to have probably missed the actual > point which I was trying to make.Stating it concisely again. > > The PHP Prefix Segment can be advertised by the neighbor as well as by > routers downstream of the neighbor which are connected to it. correct, typical case is an area boundary, where ABR propagates the prefix SID between areas. SANTANU> I actually wanted to highlight the non-ABR cases here. Consider the 3 routers below, in same area. A -----10.1.1.0/24----- B ------20.1.1.0/24 -----C In the context of A, the route of 20.1.1.0/24 is a PHP route. Now the Prefix Segment for prefix 20.1.1.0/24 can be advertised by both B, as well as by C towards A. The case I am considering here is, C has advertised the prefix segment of 20.1.1.0/24 to A first. Still when A is calculating label for 20.1.1.0/24, it should take it as PHP. However the text in draft states " upstream neighbor of the Prefix-SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID". Here A is not the upstream neighbor of C. > > So to determine a PHP Prefix Segment, should the recipient router > only check for PHP when its advertised from its neighbor(with NP flag > unset), or even when its from other routers downstream of the neighbor. draft says two things: 1. If the NP-Flag is not set then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix- SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. 2. When calculating the outgoing label for the prefix, the router MUST take into account E and P flags advertised by the next-hop router, if next-hop router advertised the SID for the prefix. This MUST be done regardless of whether the next-hop router contributes to the best path to the prefix. 'E and P flags' should be 'E and NP flags' in the above paragraph, will fix that in the next re-spin. In summary, you should only follow what NP-bit is telling you, if the neighbor advertised the SID. regards, Peter > > The reason for this doubt is this statement in the text > > "If the NP-Flag is not set then any*upstream neighbor*of the Prefix-SID > originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. This is equivalent to > the penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane." > > Regards > > Santanu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Santanu Kar [mailto:santanu.kar@ipinfusion.com ] > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:47 PM > To: 'ospf@ietf.org >'; ' ppsenak@cisco.com > >'; 'sprevidi@cisco.com > >'; 'cfilsfil@cisco.com > >'; 'hannes@juniper.net > >'; 'rob.shakir@bt.com > >'; ' wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com > >' > Subject: PHP route determination in > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 > > Hi > > Seeking some more clarification in the draft regarding PHP route > determination. Please consider the following scenario. SID refers to > Prefix Segment Identifier. > > > Router-A: --------------------- :Router-B: ---------------------( > SID-210) :Router-C > > 10.0.0.0/24 20.0.0.0/24 > > Lets consider the above topology of 3 routers. Router-C has > configured Prefix SID 210 for prefix 20.0.0.0/24 > prefix. In the context of Router-A, the route 20.0.0.0/24 > is a PHP route, as it belongs to its neighbor > Router-B. Router-B is not configured. > > When Ext Prefix LSA with SID 210 originated by Router-C reaches Router-A > , it finds that it's not from its neighbor Router-B and hence it will > end up installing a non-PHP label say 210, instead of doing penultimate > hop pop for the route 20.0.0.0/24 . But this won't > be correct. > > Am interpreting this because as per the following rules for PHP > determination prescribed in the document, "If the NP-Flag is not set > then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix- > > SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. This is equivalent to the > > penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane." > > Since this is an intra-area case, NP is not set. However since Router-A > is not upstream neighbor of Router-C it will not apply PHP for this > route, even though its actually a PHP route. Few questions in this > > 1) Should we just rely on checking that its upstream neighbor and NP > flag and then apply PHP, or Router-A should do a special search its Link > State database to find whether the route actually belongs to its > neighbor, in this case Router-B. > > 2) Is the above a valid scenario or the administrator is mandated to > configure SID values (which are all same) on all routers connected to > subnet 20.0.0.0/24 . > > 3) If we mandate (2) we will have the below scenario > > Router-A --------------------- :Router-B : > SID-210--------------------- SID-210:Router-C > > 10.0.0.0/24 20.0.0.0/24 > > In this case, even if we configure SID in Router-C earlier, we will be > needed to configure the same in Router-B also. So Router-A will select > the Ext Prefix LSA coming from Router-B , as its the best path for route > 20.0.0.0/24 than Router-C. So even though we have > non-PHP label installed first, it will be replaced with PHP label as > soon ROuter-B is also configured for same prefix. So we may not choose > to do special search in link state database to find PHP route as > mentioned in (1) > > The selection of SID, when both Router-B and Router-C is configured is > based on following the rules mentioned > inhttps:// tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-03#section-2.1 > > "If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in > > different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the > > different OSPF routers, the application using the information is > > required to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is > > used. For example, the application could prefer the LSA providing > > the best path to the prefix." > > So should we follow (2) and (3) for considering PHP, or (1). If we don't > follow any, we will end up having non-PHP label even for routes that are > PHP. > > Please point me out if in case I am misinterpreting the intent of any > texts mentioned from the drafts. > > Regards > > Santanu > > > . -- . --001a1135e9a82b7b880512b81aed Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-exten= sions-03

Hi Peter<= /span>

Please find my responses inline.

Regards

Santanu

-----Original Me= ssage-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cis= co.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:43 PM
To: Santanu Kar; ospf@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; cfilsfil@cisco.com; hannes@juniper.net; rob.shak= ir@bt.com; wim.hen= derickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Subject: Re: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-ext= ensions-03

Santanu,<= /span>

On 3/31/15 15:20= , Santanu Kar wrote:

> Hi Authors<= /font>

>

> I think las= t mail was a bit long to have probably missed the actual

> point which= I was trying to make.Stating it concisely again.

>

> The PHP Pre= fix Segment can be advertised by the neighbor as well as by <= /p>

> routers dow= nstream of the neighbor which are connected to it.

correct, typical= case is an area boundary, where ABR propagates the prefix SID between area= s.

SANTANU> I actually wanted to highlight the non-ABR cases here. Consi= der the 3 routers below, in same area.

=C2=A0A -----10.1.1.0/24----- B ------20.1.1.0/24 -----C

In the context of A, the route of 20.1.1.= 0/24 is a PHP route. Now the Prefix Segment for prefix 20.1.1.0/24 can be advertised by both B, as well as by = C towards A. The case I am considering here is, C has advertised the prefix= segment of 20.1.1.0/24 to A first. St= ill when A is calculating label for 20.1.1= .0/24, it should take it as PHP. However the text in draft states &q= uot; upstream neighbor of the Prefix-SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SI= D". Here A is not the upstream neighbor of C.

>

> So to deter= mine a PHP Prefix Segment, should the recipient router

> only check = for PHP when its advertised from its neighbor(with NP flag

> unset), or = even when its from other routers downstream of the neighbor.<= /p>

draft says two t= hings:

1. If the NP-Fla= g is not set then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix-

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID.

2. When calculat= ing the outgoing label for the prefix, the router MUST

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 take into account E and P flags advertised by the next-hop router, if

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 next-hop router advertised the SID for the prefix.=C2=A0 This MUST be d= one

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 regardless of whether the next-hop router contributes to the best

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 path to the prefix.

'E and P fla= gs' should be 'E and NP flags' in the above paragraph, will

fix that in the = next re-spin.

In summary, you = should only follow what NP-bit is telling you, if the

neighbor adverti= sed the SID.

regards,<= /span>

Peter

>

> The reason = for this doubt is this statement in the text

>

> "If th= e NP-Flag is not set then any*upstream neighbor*of the Prefix-SID

> originator = MUST pop the Prefix-SID.=C2=A0 This is equivalent to

> the penulti= mate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane."<= /p>

>

> Regards

>

> Santanu

>

> -----Origin= al Message-----

> From: Santa= nu Kar [mailto:san= tanu.kar@ipinfusion.com]

> Sent: Frida= y, March 27, 2015 7:47 PM

> To: 'ospf@ietf.org <<= font face=3D"Calibri">mailto:ospf@ietf.org>'; 'ppsenak@cisco.com

> <= mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>'; 'sprevidi@cisco.c= om

> <= mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com<= /span>>'; 'cfilsfil@cisco= .com

> <= mailto:cfilsfil@cisco.com<= /span>>'; 'hannes@juniper= .net

> <= mailto:hannes@juniper.net<= /span>>'; 'rob.shakir@bt.c= om

> <= mailto:rob.shakir@bt.com>'; 'w= im.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com

> <= mailto:wim.henderi= ckx@alcatel-lucent.com>'

> Subject: PH= P route determination in

> draft-ietf-= ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03

>

> Hi

>

> Seeking som= e more clarification in the draft regarding PHP route

> determinati= on. Please consider the following scenario. SID refers to

> Prefix Segm= ent Identifier.

>

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 Router-A: --------------------- :Router-B: -------------------= --(

> SID-210) :R= outer-C

>

> 10.0.0.0/24 <= http://10.0.0.0/24> 20.0.0.0/24 <http://20.0.= 0.0/24>

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 Lets consider the above topology of 3 routers. Router-C has

> configured = Prefix SID 210 for prefix 20.0.0.0/24 &l= t;= http://20.0.0.0/24>

> prefix. In = the context of Router-A, the route 20.0.0.0/= 24

> <= http://20.0.0.0/24> is= a PHP route, as it belongs to its neighbor

> Router-B. R= outer-B is not configured.

>

> When Ext Pr= efix LSA with SID 210 originated by Router-C reaches Router-A=

> , it finds = that it's not from its neighbor Router-B and hence it will

> end up inst= alling a non-PHP label say 210, instead of doing penultimate<= /p>

> hop pop for= the route 20.0.0.0/24 <http://20.0.0.0/24>. But thi= s won't

> be correct.=

>

> Am interpre= ting this because as per the following rules for PHP

> determinati= on prescribed in the document, "If the NP-Flag is not set

> then any up= stream neighbor of the Prefix-

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID.=C2=A0 This is equivale= nt to the

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane.&= quot;

>

> Since this = is an intra-area case, NP is not set. However since Router-A<= /p>

> is not upst= ream neighbor of Router-C it will not apply PHP for this

> route, even= though its actually a PHP route. Few questions in this

>

> 1) Should w= e just rely on checking that its upstream neighbor and NP

> flag and th= en apply PHP, or Router-A should do a special search its Link=

> State datab= ase to find whether the route actually belongs to its

> neighbor, i= n this case Router-B.

>

> 2) Is the a= bove a valid scenario or the administrator is mandated to

> configure S= ID values (which are all same) on all routers connected to

> subnet 20.0.0.0/24 <http://20.0.0.0/24<= /a>>.

>

> 3) If we ma= ndate (2) we will have the below scenario

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 Router-A --------------------- :Router-B :

> SID-210----= ----------------- SID-210:Router-C

>

> 10.0.0.0/24 <= http://10.0.0.0/24> 20.0.0.0/24 <http://20.0.= 0.0/24>

>

> In this cas= e, even if we configure SID in Router-C earlier, we will be

> needed to c= onfigure the same in Router-B also. So Router-A will select

> the Ext Pre= fix LSA coming from Router-B , as its the best path for route=

> 20.0.0.0/24 <= http://20.0.0.0/24> than Router-C. So even though = we have

> non-PHP lab= el installed first, it will be replaced with PHP label as

> soon ROuter= -B is also configured for same prefix. So we may not choose

> to do speci= al search in link state database to find PHP route as

> mentioned i= n (1)

>

> The selecti= on of SID, when both Router-B and Router-C is configured is

> based on fo= llowing the rules mentioned

> inhttps://<= a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-03#se= ction-2.1">tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-03#section-= 2.1

>

> "If th= is TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the=

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 different OSPF routers, the application using the information = is

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 required to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA = is

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 used.=C2=A0 For example, the application could prefer the LSA = providing

>

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 the best path to the prefix."

>

> So should w= e follow (2) and (3) for considering PHP, or (1). If we don't

> follow any,= we will end up having non-PHP label even for routes that are=

> PHP.=

>

> Please poin= t me out if in case I am misinterpreting the intent of any

> texts menti= oned from the drafts.

>

> Regards

>

> Santanu

>

>

> .


. --001a1135e9a82b7b880512b81aed-- From nobody Thu Apr 2 00:38:24 2015 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 81E901B2BA8 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 00:38:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 VqtxHXImmKeZ for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 00:38:22 -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 D62E61B2BA4 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=911; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427960301; x=1429169901; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TxHPzhX60RzmiFPESPIeSIknfM91+8FM7dkSqTKs3gg=; b=GRMGlcYRLGXNwJHpMaZPa/BtWXmLVGNFhVdzq4w6RZZyGMHI8KMpr0Vi 2RMP40Sw46ZJi7iGuyNcyUSKmzeacqr256AgMNSL3axhDL5BdPgkZfIAg Vv7A7YcdaPJYR/wnHwBedQhXn+UCWAt4iUXF47wfq/I9Sd1ZI7inDI9o5 U=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,509,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="412829117" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2015 07:38:20 +0000 Received: from [10.55.51.194] (ams-ppsenak-8711.cisco.com [10.55.51.194]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t327cJTa023542; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 07:38:19 GMT Message-ID: <551CF1EB.1040105@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:38:19 +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: Santanu Kar , ospf@ietf.org, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com References: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> <551AB98F.9050008@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 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, 02 Apr 2015 07:38:23 -0000 Santanu, If B is not advertising a SID for 20.1.1.0/24, then A will not do PHP. regards, Peter On 4/2/15 08:39 , Santanu Kar wrote: > SANTANU> Iactually wanted to highlight the non-ABR cases here. Consider > the3routers below,in same area. > > A -----10.1.1.0/24----- B ------20.1.1.0/24 -----C > > In thecontext of A, the route of 20.1.1.0/24 is a > PHP route. Now the Prefix Segment for prefix 20.1.1.0/24 > can be advertised by bothB, as well as by C towards > A. The case I am considering here is, C has advertised the prefix > segment of 20.1.1.0/24 to Afirst.Stillwhen A is > calculating label for20.1.1.0/24 ,it should take it > as PHP. Howeverthe text in draft states "upstream neighbor of the > Prefix-SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID". Here A is not the > upstream neighbor of C. > From nobody Thu Apr 2 02:34:48 2015 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 E61A01B2C2A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 02:34:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.778 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 RAA3bhDefnoc for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 02:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 676E21B2C29 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 02:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wgdm6 with SMTP id m6so79348414wgd.2 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 02:34:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FWOeCiLeV2m78tm2lhZjJomrP+455tVwT25gk6etnNo=; b=SQRWZPD1RbIoSdo9Oz/w3wnQUohluvEgCxBh+n8i8yZPnIAVf0IuI5nMZQjJCaQ1su HBgln2JR7N62eNC/PpEpC25Bz/3wJKd2uflBOm/CoBKDEjgDsxz1CJfA7jDz0w3m6zrK choPIE9gSWffagzTraRSaBWdITqo33SPskfO2uNfwjYmtg+8hkSyhC5klk9RimjnTC3+ 5QNKetlAHX19VKKwpRgSTMFP9CbFKqBwlLKeTpVQkW4psVxYaySOjew6EsDq5rFYPRZk kRNcj3BKLkABLSzO+gcpccUGvtex560Iz6Awrp9qXUGdkzGMlcZpJ0hbWZYoZ3UJCTd2 n1CQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkz8OBAdAfCRfDcw+bpQszaqFOyogcCKwT5zX30yYjwITMcEO3UTv1nlfdant1L4+77I4vPwAqSxyVRZbK3B6BylDOL2hVXydGzaSDhbGh2eSzCZPZyITZ+lc43AMf2hDNvm2FgKZy2fNMs2cE/54s3fd/0mUkG91n1jQyJ9CcJJoo2xH/WjUv+MMlH2dYZf6JZYVGX X-Received: by 10.194.133.101 with SMTP id pb5mr94173665wjb.40.1427967285025; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 02:34:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Santanu Kar References: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> <551AB98F.9050008@cisco.com> <551CF1EB.1040105@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <551CF1EB.1040105@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKOYGI60YUwd117EWSBze/2xwaHtAL312R0AcQ9ctwCCjG57ZuHWLQw Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 15:04:28 +0530 Message-ID: To: Peter Psenak , ospf@ietf.org, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: Penchala.Reddy@ipinfusion.com Subject: Re: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 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, 02 Apr 2015 09:34:48 -0000 Hi Peter I think, considering we are using Ext Prefix LSA in 'Area-Flooding' scope, = A should do PHP for 20.1.1.0/24 if C has advertised it. If A doesn=E2=80=99t pop for 20.1.1.0/24, and give the packet to B, it wil= l drop it, since PHP is enabled by default for all nodes. Regards Santanu -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:08 PM To: Santanu Kar; ospf@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; cfilsfil@cisco.com; hannes@juniper.net; rob.shakir@bt.com; wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Subject: Re: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 Santanu, If B is not advertising a SID for 20.1.1.0/24, then A will not do PHP. regards, Peter On 4/2/15 08:39 , Santanu Kar wrote: > SANTANU> Iactually wanted to highlight the non-ABR cases here. > SANTANU> Consider > the3routers below,in same area. > > A -----10.1.1.0/24----- B ------20.1.1.0/24 -----C > > In thecontext of A, the route of 20.1.1.0/24 is a > PHP route. Now the Prefix Segment for prefix 20.1.1.0/24 > can be advertised by bothB, as well as by C > towards A. The case I am considering here is, C has advertised the > prefix segment of 20.1.1.0/24 to Afirst.Stillwhen > A is calculating label for20.1.1.0/24 ,it should > take it as PHP. Howeverthe text in draft states "upstream neighbor of > the Prefix-SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID". Here A is not the > upstream neighbor of C. > --=20 . From nobody Thu Apr 2 03:17:49 2015 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 5CB261B2C3F for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 03:17:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 TaUMhBO5ahb9 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 03:17:46 -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 798EB1B2C3A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 03:17:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1876; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427969865; x=1429179465; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ap3Hlx5VcNUkaMlh1jgFGR1amZE5il/iSCeiA8L4kik=; b=Ao6dDqj42q60meWwwcYlk0rX2ateGng2k4agOcs1fkqnhG57W2/cwp4s PksOqsW4RLZSfqhFFICf7l7f0bt8s3lz0obZOOVuVkNfxTjD20KXFZD+x XY9/brsFIejTVTMoRVdHz+VQ/rHCquecf9e1lkmqzlH9+nBSBvEjwfyhk c=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,510,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="408796698" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2015 10:17:43 +0000 Received: from [10.55.51.194] (ams-ppsenak-8711.cisco.com [10.55.51.194]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t32AHgkW006214; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 10:17:43 GMT Message-ID: <551D1746.5010303@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:17:42 +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: Santanu Kar , ospf@ietf.org, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com References: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> <551AB98F.9050008@cisco.com> <551CF1EB.1040105@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Penchala.Reddy@ipinfusion.com Subject: Re: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 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, 02 Apr 2015 10:17:48 -0000 Santanu, On 4/2/15 11:34 , Santanu Kar wrote: > Hi Peter > > I think, considering we are using Ext Prefix LSA in 'Area-Flooding' scope, A > should do PHP for 20.1.1.0/24 if C has advertised it. I do not see why would you do PHP, if B is not advertising the SID. > If A doesn’t pop for 20.1.1.0/24, and give the packet to B, it will drop > it, since PHP is enabled by default for all nodes. why would it drop? B will get the packet with the label that corresponds to 20.1.1.0/24. regards, Peter > > Regards > Santanu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:08 PM > To: Santanu Kar; ospf@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; cfilsfil@cisco.com; > hannes@juniper.net; rob.shakir@bt.com; wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com > Subject: Re: PHP route determination in > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 > > Santanu, > > If B is not advertising a SID for 20.1.1.0/24, then A will not do PHP. > > regards, > Peter > > > On 4/2/15 08:39 , Santanu Kar wrote: >> SANTANU> Iactually wanted to highlight the non-ABR cases here. >> SANTANU> Consider >> the3routers below,in same area. >> >> A -----10.1.1.0/24----- B ------20.1.1.0/24 -----C >> >> In thecontext of A, the route of 20.1.1.0/24 is a >> PHP route. Now the Prefix Segment for prefix 20.1.1.0/24 >> can be advertised by bothB, as well as by C >> towards A. The case I am considering here is, C has advertised the >> prefix segment of 20.1.1.0/24 to Afirst.Stillwhen >> A is calculating label for20.1.1.0/24 ,it should >> take it as PHP. Howeverthe text in draft states "upstream neighbor of >> the Prefix-SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID". Here A is not the >> upstream neighbor of C. >> > From nobody Thu Apr 2 04:32:59 2015 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 080481B2C71 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 04:32:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.778 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 RqMNy0Oqfifl for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 04:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A3BB1B2C6D for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 04:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so75436291wid.0 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 04:32:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5r4xk9pLPaTPv1x+n3ptxeJBX3yOzscKaZJxcLYoFH0=; b=j8xqZtcuPj7zK3p08E0cBAUduiFgihpUHobQ0tNaJwps1Jt//5sq2Zs64KUiY8o7d1 kJ816kAzeyLO40y2dqtXv8gO7yZf/uwWacZlCkDIJEg7KWAkPgUB0MfVqWsn+sQZZy1e 90EdXjGnHlUkFNhFwDT0LUv4v3k8n5JpW96XJh7uyXbwU1KyzjSmwzOs0o1JbD5/3a8P VsQQAx0BqwzBb0DAZjIWTh54kuYW7OeUH6j5IrYHDAWNTIAD1215+vfOYtKAWiPdg+Ep rBJYOE704z58k1kJLwNkG56/YvOBkghQ5X2uQA0pKFm/YPxiDgLTpk09PcmT6kAVJ9Av +rgA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlO83DDLAumM6MLcH5u5MU8wCldRcTGgth/MiAHiGnhsulS3hyx0WvWv+b6SGGXuL30tuCYOU8bQG9/pqR64cAFm9x+9N/apAjyiPQD+TTgy6MCnpwyot5IX3ajNJhx8rrNjuzDLkTpK7UtbPjnUjgBZHI3M15soWirXIVaJFGUnbdCa1McvM5eqQfhGEqRh8gtWUR9 X-Received: by 10.180.98.67 with SMTP id eg3mr24041314wib.11.1427974374082; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 04:32:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Santanu Kar References: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> <551AB98F.9050008@cisco.com> <551CF1EB.1040105@cisco.com> <551D1746.5010303@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <551D1746.5010303@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQKOYGI60YUwd117EWSBze/2xwaHtAL312R0AcQ9ctwCCjG57QKF1nLgAhBnsu6bYsijkA== Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:02:36 +0530 Message-ID: To: Peter Psenak , ospf@ietf.org, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: Penchala Reddy Subject: Re: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 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, 02 Apr 2015 11:32:57 -0000 Hi Peter -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:48 PM To: Santanu Kar; ospf@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; cfilsfil@cisco.com; hannes@juniper.net; rob.shakir@bt.com; wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Cc: Penchala.Reddy@ipinfusion.com Subject: Re: PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 Santanu, On 4/2/15 11:34 , Santanu Kar wrote: > Hi Peter > > I think, considering we are using Ext Prefix LSA in 'Area-Flooding' > scope, A should do PHP for 20.1.1.0/24 if C has advertised it. I do not see why would you do PHP, if B is not advertising the SID. > If A doesn=E2=80=99t pop for 20.1.1.0/24, and give the packet to B, it w= ill > drop it, since PHP is enabled by default for all nodes. why would it drop? B will get the packet with the label that corresponds to 20.1.1.0/24. [SANTANU] Since PHP is enabled globally, B may not expect a label packet fo= r 20.1.1.0/24 as it expects it to be POPed in penultimate node. So B may choose not to install any POP entry for 20.1.1.0/24. In that case packet will be dropped. regards, Peter > > Regards > Santanu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:08 PM > To: Santanu Kar; ospf@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; > cfilsfil@cisco.com; hannes@juniper.net; rob.shakir@bt.com; > wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com > Subject: Re: PHP route determination in > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 > > Santanu, > > If B is not advertising a SID for 20.1.1.0/24, then A will not do PHP. > > regards, > Peter > > > On 4/2/15 08:39 , Santanu Kar wrote: >> SANTANU> Iactually wanted to highlight the non-ABR cases here. >> SANTANU> Consider >> the3routers below,in same area. >> >> A -----10.1.1.0/24----- B ------20.1.1.0/24 -----C >> >> In thecontext of A, the route of 20.1.1.0/24 is >> a PHP route. Now the Prefix Segment for prefix 20.1.1.0/24 >> can be advertised by bothB, as well as by C >> towards A. The case I am considering here is, C has advertised the >> prefix segment of 20.1.1.0/24 to >> Afirst.Stillwhen A is calculating label for20.1.1.0/24 >> ,it should take it as PHP. Howeverthe text in >> draft states "upstream neighbor of the Prefix-SID originator MUST pop >> the Prefix-SID". Here A is not the upstream neighbor of C. >> > --=20 . From nobody Thu Apr 2 05:31:23 2015 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 9DFEB1A8A0B for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 05:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 Gxmb16w6nSGb for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 05:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3863F1A1B05 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 05:31:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2706; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427977881; x=1429187481; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J3aoyIMLWcUR02E4mX8u+1P25zK/6JXGSlgJ9dl7as4=; b=YiteKb8K65yoFmOEE5eo0wS28CecnK7suISBCMlH20DJCtoujbAaqLMQ G+bRDhNCk3emno6ycjrQrmF2DGR4d2j4CnUIF3YjUyZQ60n0TmqlVC5tT pVLi3arMQ0dCzygohBdeninjzL18Q7mWz4d4Ur5+m9baDefYarjNWbTrT A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,510,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="431236097" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2015 12:31:18 +0000 Received: from [10.55.51.194] (ams-ppsenak-8711.cisco.com [10.55.51.194]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t32CVGw0026566; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 12:31:17 GMT Message-ID: <551D3695.9070905@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 14:31:17 +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: Santanu Kar , ospf@ietf.org, sprevidi@cisco.com, cfilsfil@cisco.com, hannes@juniper.net, rob.shakir@bt.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com References: 4fc9cc059b29bc852addd12c4dcb9399@mail.gmail.com <05e49b8dbcff3bd69762a410d9945189@mail.gmail.com> <551AB98F.9050008@cisco.com> <551CF1EB.1040105@cisco.com> <551D1746.5010303@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: Penchala Reddy Subject: Re: [OSPF] PHP route determination in draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 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, 02 Apr 2015 12:31:22 -0000 Santanu, On 4/2/15 13:32 , Santanu Kar wrote: > Hi Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:48 PM > To: Santanu Kar; ospf@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; cfilsfil@cisco.com; > hannes@juniper.net; rob.shakir@bt.com; wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com > Cc: Penchala.Reddy@ipinfusion.com > Subject: Re: PHP route determination in > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 > > Santanu, > > On 4/2/15 11:34 , Santanu Kar wrote: >> Hi Peter >> >> I think, considering we are using Ext Prefix LSA in 'Area-Flooding' >> scope, A should do PHP for 20.1.1.0/24 if C has advertised it. > > I do not see why would you do PHP, if B is not advertising the SID. > >> If A doesn’t pop for 20.1.1.0/24, and give the packet to B, it will >> drop it, since PHP is enabled by default for all nodes. > > why would it drop? B will get the packet with the label that corresponds to > 20.1.1.0/24. > [SANTANU] Since PHP is enabled globally, B may not expect a label packet for > 20.1.1.0/24 as it expects it to be POPed in penultimate node. So B may > choose not to install any POP entry for 20.1.1.0/24. In that case packet > will be dropped. then it's a problem of B. Peter > > regards, > Peter > >> >> Regards >> Santanu >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:08 PM >> To: Santanu Kar; ospf@ietf.org; sprevidi@cisco.com; >> cfilsfil@cisco.com; hannes@juniper.net; rob.shakir@bt.com; >> wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com >> Subject: Re: PHP route determination in >> draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-03 >> >> Santanu, >> >> If B is not advertising a SID for 20.1.1.0/24, then A will not do PHP. >> >> regards, >> Peter >> >> >> On 4/2/15 08:39 , Santanu Kar wrote: >>> SANTANU> Iactually wanted to highlight the non-ABR cases here. >>> SANTANU> Consider >>> the3routers below,in same area. >>> >>> A -----10.1.1.0/24----- B ------20.1.1.0/24 -----C >>> >>> In thecontext of A, the route of 20.1.1.0/24 is >>> a PHP route. Now the Prefix Segment for prefix 20.1.1.0/24 >>> can be advertised by bothB, as well as by C >>> towards A. The case I am considering here is, C has advertised the >>> prefix segment of 20.1.1.0/24 to >>> Afirst.Stillwhen A is calculating label for20.1.1.0/24 >>> ,it should take it as PHP. Howeverthe text in >>> draft states "upstream neighbor of the Prefix-SID originator MUST pop >>> the Prefix-SID". Here A is not the upstream neighbor of C. >>> >> > From nobody Fri Apr 3 08:46:24 2015 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 11EAD1ABD38 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:46:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 wnAG-XI6MNfJ for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AC831ABD36 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:46:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=760; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428075982; x=1429285582; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=9p3fvJheBG7II3EwTqjOeW3XRLY6eONZ8F5239i2YRk=; b=bD9LExdWIg0vKlARxbaTamLKWhh5NEJjCzG3TPmv6nb0fTqBOcnNZuFv 4EIUXEDMxN0Zd1xq1FoDLpzK7sl+8FMpFkcMOx+ZXL3NtRCwtXWcbBwU5 jXh/Pub9Dj9hZuhEtHXvfxeMfbge7SS7w/CF4vVI4/IlwbG2lpbvDodbq M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A8BQCOtR5V/4wNJK1cgwuBM4MQyHaBE0wBAQEBAQF+hCUjEVcBIgImAgQwFRIEiEKlP49UmBMBAQEHAQEBAR6BIY4sg0SBRQWQa4oAgR2PZ4NIIoNvgjN/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,518,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="405870044" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2015 15:46:00 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t33Fjxpd003957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:45:59 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.236]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:45:58 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: OSPF WG poll for adoption of draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te Thread-Index: AQHQbiVHPGB7cx4dW0qbewYQ7ub8gw== Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:45:58 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.102.13] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <32E961474B03CA43BF55F3A33FF12B7F@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG poll for adoption of draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te 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: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:46:23 -0000 QWZ0ZXIgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCB3YXMgcHJlc2VudGVkIGluIExvbmRvbiwgd2UgZGlzY3Vzc2Vk IG1ha2luZyB0aGlzIGEgV0cNCmRvY3VtZW50LiBJdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtYWtlIGEgbG90IG9mIHNl bnNlIGdpdmVuIHRoYXQgZXZlbiBpZiB5b3UgYXJlDQpydW5uaW5nIE9TUEYgYW5kIE9TUEZ2Mywg eW91IHJlYWxseSBkbyBub3QgaGF2ZSB0byBhZHZlcnRpc2UgVEUNCmluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGluIGJv dGggLSB5b3UgY2FuIHNpbXBseSBhZHZlcnRpc2UgeW91ciBlbmRwb2ludHMuIEFsc28sIHRoZXJl DQppcyByZWFsbHkgbm90aGluZyB0aGF0IGZvcmNlcyB5b3VyIE9TUEZ2MiBjb250cm9sIHBsYW5l IGFuZCB5b3VyIElQdjYgVEUNCnBsYW5lIHRvIGJlIGNvbmdydWVudCBhcyBsb25nIHJvdXRpbmcg ZG9tYWluIGlzIG5vdCBmcmFnbWVudGVkLg0KDQpIZW5jZSwgYXQgdGhpcyB0aW1lIEnigJltIHN0 YXJ0aW5nIGFuIE9TUEYgV0cgcG9sbCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpb24uIFRoZSBwb2xsDQplbmQgYXQgMTI6 MDAgQU0gb24gQXByaWwgMTh0aC4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KQWNlZSANCg0K From nobody Mon Apr 6 13:46:10 2015 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 B50911A923A; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:46:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 GiPqcA1-ysPN; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CE01A923C; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 06336180470; Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20150406204527.06336180470@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] RFC 7503 on OSPFv3 Autoconfiguration 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, 06 Apr 2015 20:46:08 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7503 Title: OSPFv3 Autoconfiguration Author: A. Lindem, J. Arkko Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: April 2015 Mailbox: acee@cisco.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net Pages: 15 Characters: 33521 Updates: RFC 5340 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-15.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7503 OSPFv3 is a candidate for deployments in environments where autoconfiguration 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. This document updates RFC 5340 by relaxing the HelloInterval/ RouterDeadInterval checking during OSPFv3 adjacency formation and adding hysteresis to the update of self-originated Link State Advertisements (LSAs). This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Tue Apr 7 11:40:32 2015 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 EBB3A1B3A55 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:40:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 yRA9J4HvoUEl for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D8FD1B3A4C for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [109.144.195.92] (helo=corretto.local) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YfYQ7-0007P2-UG; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 19:40:19 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 19:40:18 +0100 From: Rob Shakir To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Airmail (286) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 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, 07 Apr 2015 18:40:30 -0000 Hi Acee, On 31 March 2015 at 18:24:45, Acee Lindem (acee) (acee=40cisco.com) wrote= : > Now that the MPLS WG has accepted > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label/ = as =20 > a WG document. We are polling for adoption of draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01= as > an OSP=46 WG. The poll will end on April 15th, 2015 at 12:00 AM EDT. Pl= ease > indicate your support or objection prior to that time. I support the adoption of this draft =E2=80=94 it forms a useful part of = the solution for the use of EL in a network running SR. Thanks, r. From nobody Tue Apr 7 12:06:06 2015 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 841411B3AF0 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:06:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 rc1-G8IHhUXG for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:06:04 -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 BBF601B3AE1 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:05:55 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f790b6d000004359-df-5523c7f4f4ac Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C5.8A.17241.4F7C3255; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 14:05:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 15:05:54 -0400 From: Uma Chunduri To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Thread-Index: AQHQa9eM9iEdb7xkWkeYIy1pibmwfZ1B8wsA Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 19:05:53 +0000 Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F62235E@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: [147.117.188.9] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgu6X48qhBgtXS1hMfjuP2aLl3j12 ByaPKb83snosWfKTKYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStj442VjAVn2CoWTIlvYNzN2sXIySEhYCJx 7WovC4QtJnHh3no2EFtI4CijxLrXcV2MXED2MkaJ5hVLwBrYBPQkPk79yQ5iiwi4S8xaeZgZ xBYWKJZYuvkzK0S8ROLT4q9MELaRxO6eu2BxFgEViaYvU8B6eQV8JTrm72XsYuQAWqAt8eGF AkiYU0BHYsKWp2AjGYHu+X5qDdgYZgFxiVtP5jNB3CkgsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/UL8oSuzrn84O Ua8jsWD3JzYIW1ti2cLXzBBrBSVOznzCMoFRdBaSsbOQtMxC0jILScsCRpZVjBylxalluelG hpsYgZFwTILNcQfjgk+WhxgFOBiVeHgXnFQKFWJNLCuuzD3EKM3BoiTOW3blYIiQQHpiSWp2 ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGxoy8DLbqPQxT61iMr8hIVnHX6/98fMt11+zrdSaq1XPF3kwX 22IxKdyiinfhiXPv5/1UiVjAavxQTcd7p8gLNT9rrpRW7dCw+sUaZ5wnsf0SupW6843cmV03 BN6diX7fXNrxKrH7i/juy90l0WEs257WbJ+fHZPTvi3l0oFKp31tCycfntK/UImlOCPRUIu5 qDgRAJ5cS3VlAgAA Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 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, 07 Apr 2015 19:06:05 -0000 Dear Acee and All, Useful feature for SR overall ..=20 Support. -- Uma C. -----Original Message----- From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:25 AM To: OSPF WG List Subject: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capabilit= y Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Now that the MPLS WG has accepted https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label/ as a= WG document. We are polling for adoption of draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 as a= n OSPF WG. The poll will end on April 15th, 2015 at 12:00 AM EDT. Please i= ndicate your support or objection prior to that time. Thanks, Acee=20 _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From nobody Tue Apr 7 18:11:15 2015 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 5BD551B2AAE for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 18:11:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 jH3ypicFWwyG for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 18:11:12 -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 F3C201B2ABF for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 18:11:11 -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 BUP05656; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 01:11:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 02:11:09 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.209]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 09:11:05 +0800 From: Xuxiaohu To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Thread-Index: AQHQa9eM9iEdb7xkWkeYIy1pibmwfZ1B8wsAgABmz/A= Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 01:11:04 +0000 Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0832347B@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> References: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F62235E@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F62235E@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.55] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 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, 08 Apr 2015 01:11:14 -0000 Support as a co-author. Xiaohu > -----Original Message----- > From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:25 AM > To: OSPF WG List > Subject: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capabil= ity > Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 >=20 > Now that the MPLS WG has accepted > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label/ as= a WG > document. We are polling for adoption of draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 as an = OSPF > WG. The poll will end on April 15th, 2015 at 12:00 AM EDT. Please indica= te > your support or objection prior to that time. >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Apr 7 23:21:25 2015 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 8F0A21AD0D7 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 23:21:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 AHUsvk9hskiE for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 23:21:22 -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 D5A091AD0AD for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 23:21:05 -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 BRD69464; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 06:21:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 07:18:58 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.135]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:18:46 +0800 From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" To: Xuxiaohu , "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Thread-Index: AQHQa9eM9iEdb7xkWkeYIy1pibmwfZ1B8wsAgABmz/CAAFYdUA== Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 06:18:46 +0000 Message-ID: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB36374@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F62235E@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0832347B@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0832347B@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.212.150] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 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, 08 Apr 2015 06:21:23 -0000 Support. Thanks & Regards Anil S N "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Po= stel -----Original Message----- From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xuxiaohu Sent: 08 April 2015 09:11 To: Acee Lindem (acee); OSPF WG List Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capab= ility Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Support as a co-author. Xiaohu > -----Original Message----- > From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem=20 > (acee) > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:25 AM > To: OSPF WG List > Subject: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label=20 > Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 >=20 > Now that the MPLS WG has accepted > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label/=20 > as a WG document. We are polling for adoption of=20 > draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 as an OSPF WG. The poll will end on April=20 > 15th, 2015 at 12:00 AM EDT. Please indicate your support or objection pri= or to that time. >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Apr 8 14:02:37 2015 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 8C30F1B3665 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:02:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 uR6bQxWOZ-hq for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:02:34 -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 78D841B3663 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:01:45 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79686d0000030a8-6d-552540ad57a1 Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C4.5D.12456.DA045255; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:52:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 17:01:37 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Thread-Index: AQHQcj8z9iEdb7xkWkeYIy1pibmwfQ== Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 21:01:36 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <75754AAB4F70D1488895B28AC600DCD9@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPt+5aB9VQg2VtZhaT385jtmi5d4/d gcljyu+NrB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MqYPv0Cc8EctoonKzuYGhhnsXYxcnJICJhI rF3fxgxhi0lcuLeerYuRi0NI4CijxNWm58wQzjJGiYeHzrOBVLEJGEj8/3acBcQWEXCXmLXy MFi3sECVxONXR6Di1RKHvvWyQ9h6EudWXwWKc3CwCKhIbDpiAGLyCphLrF8LNpERaO/3U2uY QGxmAXGJW0/mM0HcIyCxZM95qNtEJV4+/gd2syjQxGcbNrNDxJUk5ry+xgzRqyOxYPcnNgjb WmLz7JNQM7Ulli18DVbDKyAocXLmE5YJjKKzkKybhaR9FpL2WUjaZyFpX8DIuoqRo7Q4tSw3 3chgEyMwRo5JsOnuYNzz0vIQowAHoxIPb0KwSqgQa2JZcWXuIUZpDhYlcd5FDw6GCAmkJ5ak ZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamCU056x97yoHutsTkWLLyZnH39a31XRFf5jY+urOZPXfY1w d03a+MHy5ku5TcX3uWTX/l49z+5Rn+LDUumaFbsytp++PVNnzzblDb8Sus4vydy037vKNpYx 2tBltdDzpReq/z7Y7VLTYhpzTK1jGtOnF+2fnAO16nh85bNULTvtjl3LOOx6WV5aiaU4I9FQ i7moOBEAwIF5knICAAA= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 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, 08 Apr 2015 21:02:36 -0000 Yes/support Cheers, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:24 AM To: "ospf@ietf.org" Subject: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 >Now that the MPLS WG has accepted >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label/ as >a WG document. We are polling for adoption of draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 as >an OSPF WG. The poll will end on April 15th, 2015 at 12:00 AM EDT. Please >indicate your support or objection prior to that time. > >Thanks, >Acee=20 > >_______________________________________________ >OSPF mailing list >OSPF@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From nobody Wed Apr 8 19:34:02 2015 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 D5C7F1B2AC0 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:33:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 tXNupMsXuRWn for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898D81B2AB7 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C33F0180473; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:33:22 -0700 (PDT) To: jmoy@casc.com, akatlas@gmail.com, db3546@att.com, aretana@cisco.com, akr@cisco.com, acee@cisco.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20150409023322.C33F0180473@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: ospf@ietf.org, ramakrishnadtv@infosys.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC2328 (4330) 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, 09 Apr 2015 02:34:00 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2328, "OSPF Version 2". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2328&eid=4330 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Ramakrishna Rao DTV Section: 3.4 Original Text ------------- The link-state database for the backbone is shown in Figure 8. The set of routers pictured are the backbone routers. Router RT11 is a backbone router because it belongs to two areas. In order to make the backbone connected, a virtual link has been configured between Routers R10 and R11. Corrected Text -------------- The link-state database for the backbone is shown in Figure 8. The set of routers pictured are the backbone routers. Router RT11 is a backbone router because it belongs to two areas. In order to make the backbone connected, a virtual link has been configured between Routers RT10 and RT11. Notes ----- s/R10/RT10 s/R11/RT11 Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC2328 (no draft string recorded) -------------------------------------- Title : OSPF Version 2 Publication Date : April 1998 Author(s) : J. Moy Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Thu Apr 9 07:08:18 2015 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 24BA71A1EF9; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:08:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 2LjGnmTLCSt0; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE141A1B29; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 81CB1180092; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:07:35 -0700 (PDT) To: ramakrishnadtv@infosys.com, jmoy@casc.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20150409140735.81CB1180092@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: ospf@ietf.org, akatlas@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] [Errata Verified] RFC2328 (4330) 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, 09 Apr 2015 14:08:14 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC2328, "OSPF Version 2". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2328&eid=4330 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Editorial Reported by: Ramakrishna Rao DTV Date Reported: 2015-04-08 Verified by: Alia Atlas (IESG) Section: 3.4 Original Text ------------- The link-state database for the backbone is shown in Figure 8. The set of routers pictured are the backbone routers. Router RT11 is a backbone router because it belongs to two areas. In order to make the backbone connected, a virtual link has been configured between Routers R10 and R11. Corrected Text -------------- The link-state database for the backbone is shown in Figure 8. The set of routers pictured are the backbone routers. Router RT11 is a backbone router because it belongs to two areas. In order to make the backbone connected, a virtual link has been configured between Routers RT10 and RT11. Notes ----- s/R10/RT10 s/R11/RT11 -------------------------------------- RFC2328 (no draft string recorded) -------------------------------------- Title : OSPF Version 2 Publication Date : April 1998 Author(s) : J. Moy Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Thu Apr 9 07:08:49 2015 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 1CE121A1EF5 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:08:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 Vc8MuSS_PWdV for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 687B41A1B5E for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbeb7 with SMTP id eb7so106754850obb.3 for ; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:08:36 -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=FRIppGCMNlkvw87bseNBTnQQXZVIKTAS0PpTurNtl+w=; b=Rs2HcdSCgKiJIwR1ixIX/B9JwFJ80A50dahYemu/F188pJlr1RhuZ8k9YLPd5iMtvk eDuIc0XqUhL2uESiNprQ7ZSZLcvJc/TQwqCHg3iXKIsvp5isJu8QykxrDTo9agIIkiW3 lleQPn3R4A9Pa4lPiKFxa87+unhR5p+FQJYiQNzfRaasUC2izemkG5YTdWE9UEP+fD02 UFpSlOAtJ3dOEFMOgjkfVFt8yIJmTDqzcptbRvn5DalqMGwj7JFt/EDDfV8EqohsNqxV N0XUbH2V7UnrTjbxSbFRS36YY32Yahy239Yf+OSIurEnjHNbr3Q/fWlG5gWzDpmp8diP befA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.161.36 with SMTP id xp4mr39849839oeb.61.1428588513584; Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.44.198 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 07:08:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0FB1A89A-B53B-4318-B22B-38F0E5B10D5E@lindem.com> References: <20150409023322.C33F0180473@rfc-editor.org> <0FB1A89A-B53B-4318-B22B-38F0E5B10D5E@lindem.com> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:08:33 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alia Atlas To: Acee Lindem Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160026e1ee8705134b2e3e Archived-At: Cc: OSPF List , RFC Errata System , ramakrishnadtv@infosys.com Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC2328 (4330) 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, 09 Apr 2015 14:08:43 -0000 --089e01160026e1ee8705134b2e3e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the prompt feedback. It's been verified. Alia On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Alia, Alvaro, > > I agree this errata should be verified as an editorial errata. It=E2=80= =99s an > editorial errata since the intent of the text is clear as is. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 10:33 PM, RFC Errata System < > rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2328, > > "OSPF Version 2". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D2328&eid=3D4330 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Editorial > > Reported by: Ramakrishna Rao DTV > > > > Section: 3.4 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > The link-state database for the backbone is shown in Figure 8. > > The set of routers pictured are the backbone routers. Router > > RT11 is a backbone router because it belongs to two areas. In > > order to make the backbone connected, a virtual link has been > > configured between Routers R10 and R11. > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > The link-state database for the backbone is shown in Figure 8. > > The set of routers pictured are the backbone routers. Router > > RT11 is a backbone router because it belongs to two areas. In > > order to make the backbone connected, a virtual link has been > > configured between Routers RT10 and RT11. > > > > Notes > > ----- > > s/R10/RT10 > > s/R11/RT11 > > > > Instructions: > > ------------- > > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC2328 (no draft string recorded) > > -------------------------------------- > > Title : OSPF Version 2 > > Publication Date : April 1998 > > Author(s) : J. Moy > > Category : INTERNET STANDARD > > Source : Open Shortest Path First IGP > > Area : Routing > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OSPF mailing list > > OSPF@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > --089e01160026e1ee8705134b2e3e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the prompt feedback.=C2=A0 It's been verifi= ed.

Alia

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Acee Lindem <ace= e.lindem@gmail.com> wrote:
= Alia, Alvaro,

I agree this errata should be verified as an editorial errata. It=E2=80=99s= an editorial errata since the intent of the text is clear as is.

Thanks,
Acee

> On Apr 8, 2015, at 10:33 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2328,
> "OSPF Version 2".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?r= fc=3D2328&eid=3D4330
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Ramakrishna Rao DTV <ramakrishnadtv@infosys.com>
>
> Section: 3.4
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The link-state database for the backbone is= shown in Figure 8.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The set of routers pictured are the backbon= e routers.=C2=A0 Router
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 RT11 is a backbone router because it belong= s to two areas.=C2=A0 In
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 order to make the backbone connected, a vir= tual link has been
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 configured between Routers R10 and R11.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The link-state database for the backbone is= shown in Figure 8.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The set of routers pictured are the backbon= e routers.=C2=A0 Router
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 RT11 is a backbone router because it belong= s to two areas.=C2=A0 In
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 order to make the backbone connected, a vir= tual link has been
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 configured between Routers RT10 and RT11. >
> Notes
> -----
> s/R10/RT10
> s/R11/RT11
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary= , please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or<= br> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC2328 (no draft string recorded)
> --------------------------------------
> Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: OSPF Ver= sion 2
> Publication Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 : April 1998
> Author(s)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: J. Moy
> Category=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : INTERNET STANDARD<= br> > Source=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Open Shortest= Path First IGP
> Area=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : Routing<= br> > Stream=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : IETF
> Verifying Party=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf


--089e01160026e1ee8705134b2e3e-- From nobody Mon Apr 13 16:34:57 2015 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 096251ACEA2; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:34:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 Vle7oqStm5II; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9951B1ACEA1; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:34:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 177E2180206; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:34:22 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:ams_util_lib.php From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20150413233422.177E2180206@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] RFC 7474 on Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key Management 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, 13 Apr 2015 23:34:56 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7474 Title: Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key Management Author: M. Bhatia, S. Hartman, D. Zhang, A. Lindem, Ed. Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: April 2015 Mailbox: manav@ionosnetworks.com, hartmans-ietf@mit.edu, dacheng.zhang@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com Pages: 14 Characters: 31832 Updates: RFC 2328, RFC 5709 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-security-extension-manual-keying-11.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474 The current OSPFv2 cryptographic authentication mechanism as defined in RFCs 2328 and 5709 is vulnerable to both inter-session and intra- session replay attacks when using manual keying. Additionally, the existing cryptographic authentication mechanism does not cover the IP header. This omission can be exploited to carry out various types of attacks. This document defines changes to the authentication sequence number mechanism that will protect OSPFv2 from both inter-session and intra- session replay attacks when using manual keys for securing OSPFv2 protocol packets. Additionally, we also describe some changes in the cryptographic hash computation that will eliminate attacks resulting from OSPFv2 not protecting the IP header. This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From nobody Wed Apr 15 08:46:51 2015 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 C4DE21B2AA8 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 yZ5-5s9F8f5E for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:46:49 -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 40A3D1B2A16 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=748; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429112809; x=1430322409; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BgXjX5+Isk8Yrk8drm6tu762upfCq402CqXtrnS/ckE=; b=cSeI6C3PFJKkAFoaAfMJSQ8zgMaMCGfXMFWpQsTD4KWMhNgTwwrf2r0Q 5JWUDmQbup+cwXdmwAngdi++ZSf1BfFdokqlVE3/eI/TXtSNUD7rR0ud/ 5MxKGyjHQ65Xvw97tY17034hPnDFhr9aXD6YRewbFPQk2NHD4mD2VqJ// A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CFBABOhy5V/4YNJK1cgwxSYYMQwk0JgU+GIYEfOBQBAQEBAQEBfYQnGAUGEVcBIgIfBwIEMBUSBIg9DZ9Bj1WWBAEBAQEGAQEBAQEZBIEhkXWBRQWRDoN5hhiBHYM3jE6DTSKCM4E8gjN/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,582,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="141511785" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2015 15:46:48 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3FFkm3j005595 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:46:48 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.120]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:46:48 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: OSPF WG Last Call for "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement" - draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-04.txt Thread-Index: AQHQd5Nh6xuBHiRW/UK3hgoDMAMsmA== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:46:48 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement" - draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-04.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, 15 Apr 2015 15:46:51 -0000 VGhpcyBkcmFmdCBkZXNjcmliZXMgdGhlIGNvcmUgbWVjaGFuaXNtcyBmb3IgT1NQRnYyIHByb3Rv Y29sIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBhbmQNCnRoZXJlIGFyZSBzZXZlcmFsIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50cyB0aGF0IGFy ZSBkZXBlbmRlbnQgb24gaXQuIFdlIGhhdmUgc2V2ZXJhbA0KaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zLiBXZSBm ZWVsIHdlIGFyZSByZWFkeSBmb3IgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsLiBUaGUgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsDQp3aWxs IHN0YXJ0IG5vdyBhbmQgZW5kIG9uIFRodXJzZGF5LCBBcHJpbCAyOXRoIGF0IDEyOjAwIEFNIFBE VC4gUGxlYXNlDQpkaXJlY3QgY29tbWVudHMgdG8gdGhpcyBsaXN0Lg0KDQpGb3IgeW91ciBjb252 ZW5pZW5jZSwgaGVyZSBpcyB0aGUgVVJMOg0KaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9k b2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1vc3BmLXByZWZpeC1saW5rLWF0dHIvDQoNCldlIHdpbGwgYmUgZG9pbmcg YW4gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gc3VydmV5IGFuZCByZXBvcnQgYXMgd2VsbC4gU3RheSB0dW5lZC4N Cg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KQWNlZSBhbmQgQWJoYXkNCg0KDQo= From nobody Mon Apr 20 06:22:30 2015 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 8BBAF1B2B70 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:22:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 1DH8uFPeFQI6 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 991CD1B2B6B for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 06:21:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1044; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429536075; x=1430745675; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=yN/bRuD8yTBjgNoEJUIuZo+b5TuDs/oEkt3ohWlotQw=; b=DQqsTKXBLkuJ+EpHzZIcGDdJm4wkNc0VKJqtbTiyALcNRjgfTQPT4PzV f2dl9Xd76L96mitxSVeHFWNazinBbSC6dMv3ik6nAo6XwfHYJrkEd2AFd nPZ9HgzGkzHIymt4evEUE2VUO+3UmKMPzoglMEQCeoOXoqhby5mTrOCCX A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A6BQBe/DRV/5RdJa1bgwxSUQsFgxLECwqGAx6BFkwBAQEBAQF+hCEBAQQBAQEaBhE6HQEIGgIfBwIEJQsVEgQBEogrDbUjlDABAQEBAQUBAQEBAQEBFwSBIYoWhFGDIoFFBZErg3yGJYEfgzyMeYNOIoI3gTxvgUSBAAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,609,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="413223651" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2015 13:21:15 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3KDLElv002564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:21:14 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.120]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:21:14 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Thread-Index: AQHQe2zfPOWaTjlAzkeNQ7VvfnAV0A== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:21:13 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.238.14] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <9BA789569D31F14CA1C9808C193EED83@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 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, 20 Apr 2015 13:22:29 -0000 SGkgVGlnZXIsIG90aGVyIGF1dGhvcnMsDQoNCkdpdmVuIHRoZSBzdXBwb3J0IGFuZCB0aGUgY29y cmVzcG9uZGluZyB3b3JrIGluIHRoZSBNUExTIFdHLCB3ZSB3aWxsIGFkb3B0DQp0aGlzIGRvY3Vt ZW50IGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQuIFBsZWFzZSByZXN1Ym1pdCBhcw0KZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1vc3Bm LW1wbHMtZWxjLTAwLnR4dC4NCiANClRoYW5rcywNCkFjZWUNCg0KDQpPbiAzLzMxLzE1LCAxOjI0 IFBNLCAiQWNlZSBMaW5kZW0gKGFjZWUpIiA8YWNlZUBjaXNjby5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+Tm93 IHRoYXQgdGhlIE1QTFMgV0cgaGFzIGFjY2VwdGVkDQo+aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRm Lm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1tcGxzLXNwcmluZy1lbnRyb3B5LWxhYmVsLyBhcw0KPmEgV0cg ZG9jdW1lbnQuIFdlIGFyZSBwb2xsaW5nIGZvciBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC14dS1vc3BmLW1w bHMtZWxjLTAxIGFzDQo+YW4gT1NQRiBXRy4gIFRoZSBwb2xsIHdpbGwgZW5kIG9uIEFwcmlsIDE1 dGgsIDIwMTUgYXQgMTI6MDAgQU0gRURULiBQbGVhc2UNCj5pbmRpY2F0ZSB5b3VyIHN1cHBvcnQg b3Igb2JqZWN0aW9uIHByaW9yIHRvIHRoYXQgdGltZS4NCj4NCj5UaGFua3MsDQo+QWNlZSANCj4N Cj5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPk9TUEYg bWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+T1NQRkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxt YW4vbGlzdGluZm8vb3NwZg0KDQo= From nobody Mon Apr 20 19:52:05 2015 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 B9E7B1A887B for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Lp3n1GiPlN6y for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:02 -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 1437E1A885F for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:52:01 -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 BVC21509; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 02:52:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 03:52:00 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.209]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:51:52 +0800 From: Xuxiaohu To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , OSPF WG List Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 Thread-Index: AQHQe2zfPOWaTjlAzkeNQ7VvfnAV0J1WxK5Q Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 02:51:52 +0000 Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08326E7C@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: [10.111.99.55] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Capability Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 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, 21 Apr 2015 02:52:03 -0000 Hi Acee and Abhay, I have submitted it. Best regards, Xiaohu (Tiger) > -----Original Message----- > From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 9:21 PM > To: Acee Lindem (acee); OSPF WG List > Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG call for adoption for "Signaling Entropy Label Cap= ability > Using OSPF" - draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 >=20 > Hi Tiger, other authors, >=20 > Given the support and the corresponding work in the MPLS WG, we will adop= t > this document as a WG document. Please resubmit as > draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-00.txt. >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 >=20 > On 3/31/15, 1:24 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: >=20 > >Now that the MPLS WG has accepted > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label/ > >as a WG document. We are polling for adoption of > >draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc-01 as an OSPF WG. The poll will end on April > >15th, 2015 at 12:00 AM EDT. Please indicate your support or objection pr= ior to > that time. > > > >Thanks, > >Acee > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 Apr 21 09:03:24 2015 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 1C53A1AD049 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:03:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 DEjiLiQ1JF33 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C8A11AD059 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:03:10 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79126d000004b89-33-553674bcb91c Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3C.3A.19337.CB476355; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:03:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.101]) by ESESSHC002.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.24]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:03:08 +0200 From: Fredrik Liljegren To: "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf Thread-Index: AdB8Svi7vlzY17pwRQKm71t5rLqaVQAAajXA Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:03:07 +0000 Message-ID: <83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8F1D@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8F1DESESSMB105erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6eErNQg7XzjSxa7t1jd2D0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxsLpq9kLnqtWLJ/6j7GB8bxCFyMnh4SAicTqM/2MELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hASOMkp8/TWTBcJZwijx/P1TFpAqNgELiecbHjOD2CICyhJb9vazgdjCAqYS/6eu ZIWIW0nsXP2HDcI2kpi4fStYPYuAqsSZzilgc3gFfCUOLdwMZjMKyErc/34PzGYWEJe49WQ+ E8RFAhJL9pxnhrBFJV4+/scKYStKfHy1D+hqDqD6fIlprx0gRgpKnJz5hGUCo9AsJJNmIVTN QlIFUaIjsWD3JzYIW1ti2cLXzDD2mQOPmZDFFzCyr2IULU4tTspNNzLWSy3KTC4uzs/Ty0st 2cQIjIiDW36r7mC8/MbxEKMAB6MSD6/CetNQIdbEsuLK3EOM0hwsSuK8dsaHQoQE0hNLUrNT UwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwMm9MKbtR/vvpne/OUgc0Y4xPdmjlOrJ8+lMi+/y3tEFF7elT pRn++Q3z/RLFS3KsGV/tCTqS+VfBRSIogDNuUcwtefPqDX0n/irMmPxYyYuhjq8gv67qtz9f wYnSS+IM4lNOJNWuCHhmp/nez+juhWVtih5zJuz8uVXyDbuBDot7W9RlgWIlluKMREMt5qLi RAC7Q4KCaQIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf 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, 21 Apr 2015 16:03:20 -0000 --_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8F1DESESSMB105erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! I have a scenario where I run two OSPF instances (AS) on the same router, a= nd intend to share some routing information between them. One instance atta= ches locally connected networks, and one instance facing the external world= . The locally connected networks are included into OSPF as passive networks, = and are supposed to be redistributed into the "external" OSPF instance with= redistribute OSPF. This does not work, and I can't find any documentation = regarding this use case. Other OSPF networks are redistributed as expected,= but the passive networks seems to be considered as connected even though t= hey are included into with the passive feature. Are passive networks to be = considered as any other locally connected OSPF network when it comes to red= istribute OSPF, or is there some difference in this regards? I thought they= would be treated the same, and am trying to convince some designers that i= t is, but I better make sure first that it actually is the case or did I mi= sunderstand the passive feature? Thanks and regards Fredrik --_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8F1DESESSMB105erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Hi!

 

I have a scenario where I run t= wo OSPF instances (AS) on the same router, and intend to share some routing= information between them. One instance attaches locally connected networks= , and one instance facing the external world.

 

The locally connected networks = are included into OSPF as passive networks, and are supposed to be redistri= buted into the “external” OSPF instance with redistribute OSPF.= This does not work, and I can’t find any documentation regarding this use case. Other OSPF networks are redistributed as expected= , but the passive networks seems to be considered as connected even though = they are included into with the passive feature. Are passive networks to be= considered as any other locally connected OSPF network when it comes to redistribute OSPF, or is there som= e difference in this regards? I thought they would be treated the same, and= am trying to convince some designers that it is, but I better make sure fi= rst that it actually is the case or did I misunderstand the passive feature?

 

Thanks and regards

Fredrik

--_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8F1DESESSMB105erics_-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 09:23:33 2015 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 D9F761AD0B3 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:23:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 RqwahNoibXg3 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9771C1AD0B5 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9739; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429633404; x=1430843004; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=U7t9UcXpFTmXMRi+H+ffIhZW/OdwSsZw7OIGHF93wvw=; b=C2002OtI3OE6p4bMpHS27jUcWPGwEyboJR+/EIe8Xa7FXQr1YVkOPb7w nNS+Sn8sERodfoI1cbeywJdMmBuzrdf8te1dZH1xChyQXpmS7usmBOpXR zsEEIG0T7coT+MDGro/E7fpf0cuAptEjBnMPaqtAbS4D7/WHbXcXnAvv0 o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ANBQCMeDZV/5ldJa1bgkVHUlwFgxPKWx6BJUwBAQEBAQF+hCABAgQjCl4BCBEDAQIoAwIEMBQJCgQBEogrtnyUeAEBAQEBAQQBAQEBAQEcizeEc4MAgUUFkTCKJ4EgkDqDTiKBZCEdgVFvgUSBAAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,617,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="413602279" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2015 16:23:21 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3LGNLtX029057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:23:21 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.120]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:23:20 -0500 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: Fredrik Liljegren , "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf Thread-Index: AQHQfE96iuP9ShoS9ECeQCIzjny9bw== Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:23:20 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.154.212.62] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D15BC6B0186EFaceeciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf 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, 21 Apr 2015 16:23:33 -0000 --_000_D15BC6B0186EFaceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgRnJlZHJpaywNCk5vdGUgdGhhdCBwYXNzaXZlIGludGVyZmFjZXMgYXJlIGEgbm9uLXN0YW5k YXJkIHByb3RvY29sIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBhbmQgYXJlIG5vdCBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIElFVEYgc3BlY2lm aWNhdGlvbi4gSGF2aW5nIHNhaWQgdGhhdCwgeW91IGhhdmUgbWlzdW5kZXJzdG9vZCBob3cgdGhl IHBhc3NpdmUgZmVhdHVyZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCBieSBtYW55IHZlbmRvcnMuIFRo ZSBwYXNzaXZlIGludGVyZmFjZSBzdWJuZXQgd2lsbCBiZSBhZHZlcnRpc2VkIGFzIGEgbG9jYWwg c3R1YiBuZXR3b3JrIGluIHRoZSBSb3V0ZXItTFNBIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRpbmcgdG8gdGhlIGFyZWEg aW4gd2hpY2ggdGhleSBhcmUgY29uZmlndXJlZC4gSWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gYWR2ZXJ0aXNlIHRo ZXNlIHN1Ym5ldHMgYXMgZXh0ZXJuYWwgcm91dGVzIHlvdSBzaG91bGQgbm90IGNvbmZpZ3VyZSB0 aGVtIGFzIHBhc3NpdmUgYW5kIHNob3VsZCBzaW1wbHkgcmVkaXN0cmlidXRlIHlvdXIgY29ubmVj dGVkIHJvdXRlcy4NCkhvcGUgdGhpcyBoZWxwcywNCkFjZWUNCg0KRnJvbTogRnJlZHJpayBMaWxq ZWdyZW4gPGZyZWRyaWsubGlsamVncmVuQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86ZnJlZHJpay5saWxq ZWdyZW5AZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPj4NCkRhdGU6IFR1ZXNkYXksIEFwcmlsIDIxLCAyMDE1IGF0IDk6 MDMgQU0NClRvOiBPU1BGIFdHIExpc3QgPG9zcGZAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOm9zcGZAaWV0Zi5v cmc+Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogW09TUEZdIG9zcGYgcGFzc2l2ZSBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYW5kIHJlZGlzdHJp YnV0ZSBvc3BmDQoNCg0KSGkhDQoNCkkgaGF2ZSBhIHNjZW5hcmlvIHdoZXJlIEkgcnVuIHR3byBP U1BGIGluc3RhbmNlcyAoQVMpIG9uIHRoZSBzYW1lIHJvdXRlciwgYW5kIGludGVuZCB0byBzaGFy ZSBzb21lIHJvdXRpbmcgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVtLiBPbmUgaW5zdGFuY2UgYXR0 YWNoZXMgbG9jYWxseSBjb25uZWN0ZWQgbmV0d29ya3MsIGFuZCBvbmUgaW5zdGFuY2UgZmFjaW5n IHRoZSBleHRlcm5hbCB3b3JsZC4NCg0KVGhlIGxvY2FsbHkgY29ubmVjdGVkIG5ldHdvcmtzIGFy ZSBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbnRvIE9TUEYgYXMgcGFzc2l2ZSBuZXR3b3JrcywgYW5kIGFyZSBzdXBwb3Nl ZCB0byBiZSByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGVkIGludG8gdGhlIOKAnGV4dGVybmFs4oCdIE9TUEYgaW5zdGFu Y2Ugd2l0aCByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgT1NQRi4gVGhpcyBkb2VzIG5vdCB3b3JrLCBhbmQgSSBjYW7i gJl0IGZpbmQgYW55IGRvY3VtZW50YXRpb24gcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoaXMgdXNlIGNhc2UuIE90aGVy IE9TUEYgbmV0d29ya3MgYXJlIHJlZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQgYXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQsIGJ1dCB0aGUgcGFz c2l2ZSBuZXR3b3JrcyBzZWVtcyB0byBiZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGFzIGNvbm5lY3RlZCBldmVuIHRo b3VnaCB0aGV5IGFyZSBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbnRvIHdpdGggdGhlIHBhc3NpdmUgZmVhdHVyZS4gQXJl IHBhc3NpdmUgbmV0d29ya3MgdG8gYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBhcyBhbnkgb3RoZXIgbG9jYWxseSBj b25uZWN0ZWQgT1NQRiBuZXR3b3JrIHdoZW4gaXQgY29tZXMgdG8gcmVkaXN0cmlidXRlIE9TUEYs IG9yIGlzIHRoZXJlIHNvbWUgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSBpbiB0aGlzIHJlZ2FyZHM/IEkgdGhvdWdodCB0 aGV5IHdvdWxkIGJlIHRyZWF0ZWQgdGhlIHNhbWUsIGFuZCBhbSB0cnlpbmcgdG8gY29udmluY2Ug c29tZSBkZXNpZ25lcnMgdGhhdCBpdCBpcywgYnV0IEkgYmV0dGVyIG1ha2Ugc3VyZSBmaXJzdCB0 aGF0IGl0IGFjdHVhbGx5IGlzIHRoZSBjYXNlIG9yIGRpZCBJIG1pc3VuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIHBh c3NpdmUgZmVhdHVyZT8NCg0KVGhhbmtzIGFuZCByZWdhcmRzDQpGcmVkcmlrDQo= --_000_D15BC6B0186EFaceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsgY29sb3I6IHJnYigwLCAwLCAwKTsgZm9udC1zaXplOiAx NHB4OyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogQ2FsaWJyaSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsiPg0KPGRpdj5IaSBGcmVkcmlr LCZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5Ob3RlIHRoYXQgcGFzc2l2ZSBpbnRlcmZhY2VzIGFyZSBhIG5v bi1zdGFuZGFyZCBwcm90b2NvbCBleHRlbnNpb24gYW5kIGFyZSBub3Qgc3ViamVjdCB0byBJRVRG IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24uIEhhdmluZyBzYWlkIHRoYXQsIHlvdSBoYXZlIG1pc3VuZGVyc3Rvb2Qg aG93IHRoZSBwYXNzaXZlIGZlYXR1cmUgaGFzIGJlZW4gaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQgYnkgbWFueSB2ZW5k b3JzLiBUaGUgcGFzc2l2ZSBpbnRlcmZhY2Ugc3VibmV0IHdpbGwgYmUgYWR2ZXJ0aXNlZA0KIGFz IGEgbG9jYWwgc3R1YiBuZXR3b3JrIGluIHRoZSBSb3V0ZXItTFNBIGNvcnJlc3BvbmRpbmcgdG8g dGhlIGFyZWEgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGhleSBhcmUgY29uZmlndXJlZC4gSWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gYWR2 ZXJ0aXNlIHRoZXNlIHN1Ym5ldHMgYXMgZXh0ZXJuYWwgcm91dGVzIHlvdSBzaG91bGQgbm90IGNv bmZpZ3VyZSB0aGVtIGFzIHBhc3NpdmUgYW5kIHNob3VsZCBzaW1wbHkgcmVkaXN0cmlidXRlIHlv dXIgY29ubmVjdGVkIHJvdXRlcy4mbmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+SG9wZSB0aGlzIGhlbHBzLDwv ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5BY2VlJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHNwYW4gaWQ9 Ik9MS19TUkNfQk9EWV9TRUNUSU9OIj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7 IGZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMXB0OyB0ZXh0LWFsaWduOmxlZnQ7IGNvbG9yOmJsYWNrOyBCT1JERVItQk9U VE9NOiBtZWRpdW0gbm9uZTsgQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6IG1lZGl1bSBub25lOyBQQURESU5HLUJPVFRP TTogMGluOyBQQURESU5HLUxFRlQ6IDBpbjsgUEFERElORy1SSUdIVDogMGluOyBCT1JERVItVE9Q OiAjYjVjNGRmIDFwdCBzb2xpZDsgQk9SREVSLVJJR0hUOiBtZWRpdW0gbm9uZTsgUEFERElORy1U T1A6IDNwdCI+DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6Ym9sZCI+RnJvbTogPC9zcGFuPkZy ZWRyaWsgTGlsamVncmVuICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86ZnJlZHJpay5saWxqZWdyZW5AZXJp Y3Nzb24uY29tIj5mcmVkcmlrLmxpbGplZ3JlbkBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb208L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj4NCjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5EYXRlOiA8L3NwYW4+VHVlc2RheSwgQXByaWwg MjEsIDIwMTUgYXQgOTowMyBBTTxicj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5U bzogPC9zcGFuPk9TUEYgV0cgTGlzdCAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOm9zcGZAaWV0Zi5vcmci Pm9zcGZAaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xk Ij5TdWJqZWN0OiA8L3NwYW4+W09TUEZdIG9zcGYgcGFzc2l2ZSBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYW5kIHJlZGlz dHJpYnV0ZSBvc3BmPGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUg aWQ9Ik1BQ19PVVRMT09LX0FUVFJJQlVUSU9OX0JMT0NLUVVPVEUiIHN0eWxlPSJCT1JERVItTEVG VDogI2I1YzRkZiA1IHNvbGlkOyBQQURESU5HOjAgMCAwIDU7IE1BUkdJTjowIDAgMCA1OyI+DQo8 ZGl2IHhtbG5zOnY9InVybjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206dm1sIiB4bWxuczpvPSJ1cm46 c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTpvZmZpY2UiIHhtbG5zOnc9InVybjpzY2hlbWFz LW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOndvcmQiIHhtbG5zOm09Imh0dHA6Ly9zY2hlbWFzLm1pY3Jv c29mdC5jb20vb2ZmaWNlLzIwMDQvMTIvb21tbCIgeG1sbnM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnL1RS L1JFQy1odG1sNDAiPg0KPG1ldGEgbmFtZT0iR2VuZXJhdG9yIiBjb250ZW50PSJNaWNyb3NvZnQg V29yZCAxNCAoZmlsdGVyZWQgbWVkaXVtKSI+DQo8c3R5bGU+PCEtLQ0KLyogRm9udCBEZWZpbml0 aW9ucyAqLw0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJpOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIg MTUgNSAyIDIgMiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCi8qIFN0eWxlIERlZmluaXRpb25zICovDQpwLk1zb05vcm1h bCwgbGkuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjowY207DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJv dHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmki LCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgltc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUzt9DQphOmxpbmssIHNw YW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpibHVlOw0K CXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGlu a0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpwdXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4 dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxNw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUt dHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNv bG9yOndpbmRvd3RleHQ7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVy c29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xv cjojMUY0OTdEO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5 Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6NjEyLjBw dCA3OTIuMHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbjo3MC44NXB0IDcwLjg1cHQgNzAuODVwdCA3MC44NXB0O30NCmRp di5Xb3JkU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFnZTpXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+PC9zdHlsZT48IS0tW2lm IGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9 IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCjxv OnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0Ij4NCjxvOmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIx IiAvPg0KPC9vOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPg0KPGRpdiBsYW5nPSJTViIg bGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9InB1cnBsZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj5IaSE8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPkkg aGF2ZSBhIHNjZW5hcmlvIHdoZXJlIEkgcnVuIHR3byBPU1BGIGluc3RhbmNlcyAoQVMpIG9uIHRo ZSBzYW1lIHJvdXRlciwgYW5kIGludGVuZCB0byBzaGFyZSBzb21lIHJvdXRpbmcgaW5mb3JtYXRp b24gYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVtLiBPbmUgaW5zdGFuY2UgYXR0YWNoZXMgbG9jYWxseSBjb25uZWN0ZWQg bmV0d29ya3MsIGFuZCBvbmUgaW5zdGFuY2UgZmFjaW5nIHRoZSBleHRlcm5hbA0KIHdvcmxkLjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVO LVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+VGhlIGxvY2FsbHkgY29ubmVjdGVkIG5ldHdvcmtzIGFyZSBpbmNs dWRlZCBpbnRvIE9TUEYgYXMgcGFzc2l2ZSBuZXR3b3JrcywgYW5kIGFyZSBzdXBwb3NlZCB0byBi ZSByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGVkIGludG8gdGhlIOKAnGV4dGVybmFs4oCdIE9TUEYgaW5zdGFuY2Ugd2l0 aCByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgT1NQRi4gVGhpcyBkb2VzIG5vdCB3b3JrLCBhbmQgSSBjYW7igJl0IGZp bmQgYW55IGRvY3VtZW50YXRpb24NCiByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhpcyB1c2UgY2FzZS4gT3RoZXIgT1NQ RiBuZXR3b3JrcyBhcmUgcmVkaXN0cmlidXRlZCBhcyBleHBlY3RlZCwgYnV0IHRoZSBwYXNzaXZl IG5ldHdvcmtzIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYXMgY29ubmVjdGVkIGV2ZW4gdGhvdWdo IHRoZXkgYXJlIGluY2x1ZGVkIGludG8gd2l0aCB0aGUgcGFzc2l2ZSBmZWF0dXJlLiBBcmUgcGFz c2l2ZSBuZXR3b3JrcyB0byBiZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGFzIGFueSBvdGhlciBsb2NhbGx5DQogY29u bmVjdGVkIE9TUEYgbmV0d29yayB3aGVuIGl0IGNvbWVzIHRvIHJlZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSBPU1BGLCBv ciBpcyB0aGVyZSBzb21lIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgaW4gdGhpcyByZWdhcmRzPyBJIHRob3VnaHQgdGhl eSB3b3VsZCBiZSB0cmVhdGVkIHRoZSBzYW1lLCBhbmQgYW0gdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGNvbnZpbmNlIHNv bWUgZGVzaWduZXJzIHRoYXQgaXQgaXMsIGJ1dCBJIGJldHRlciBtYWtlIHN1cmUgZmlyc3QgdGhh dCBpdCBhY3R1YWxseSBpcyB0aGUgY2FzZQ0KIG9yIGRpZCBJIG1pc3VuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIHBh c3NpdmUgZmVhdHVyZT88bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFs Ij48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPlRoYW5rcyBhbmQgcmVnYXJkczxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVT Ij5GcmVkcmlrPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0K PC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPg0KPC9zcGFuPg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_D15BC6B0186EFaceeciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 09:32:52 2015 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 2C2011AD0C0 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 b17nlRmjBmBP for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCF5B1AD0A5 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:32:13 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79126d000004b89-45-55367b8ba31c Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 57.6D.19337.B8B76355; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:32:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB105.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.101]) by ESESSHC012.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:32:11 +0200 From: Fredrik Liljegren To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf Thread-Index: AQHQfE96iuP9ShoS9ECeQCIzjny9b51XqBgA Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:32:10 +0000 Message-ID: <83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCC@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCCESESSMB105erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW53tVmowfolFhaT385jtmi5d4/d gcljyu+NrB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mo4sv8SY8G7sop/Jz+zNjBeKe5i5OSQEDCR mLSxkxnCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwFFGiXXTO9khnCWMEot2trCDVLEJWEg83/AYrENEwEvixsQm sLiwgINEx7rT7BBxR4mm5XMYIWwjiTMNW8FsFgFVie0HO9hAbF4BX4l3c68wgdhCAtoSPXPa gHo5ODgFdCT2/wMbzyggK3H/+z0WEJtZQFzi1pP5TBCHCkgs2XMe6mhRiZeP/7FC2IoSH1/t Y4Soz5eY2DGHHWKVoMTJmU9YJjCKzEIyahaSsllIymYBXcEsoCmxfpc+RImixJTuh+wQtoZE 65y57MjiCxjZVzGKFqcWJ+WmGxnrpRZlJhcX5+fp5aWWbGIERtXBLb9VdzBefuN4iFGAg1GJ h1dhvWmoEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXFeO+NDIUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYHf/N cD9YyWC28W3q63CJGkUV7qmCs+2rHxfznvHadDB8UveDxvLGZ3fmZdv3TY0XXZB8dOVfPxaV 328zVm0pfhChzsT3/VuCBff57lWuH6vZ5vhUfnlx8qb6vJqy7/GdrYdC2M8s9At676t1UXaN Wn7Vt7sctXwafEy/g359UNYL/bvq9EcfJZbijERDLeai4kQAMpz6U4sCAAA= Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf 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, 21 Apr 2015 16:32:51 -0000 --_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCCESESSMB105erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkhDQoNClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgeW91ciBhbnN3ZXIuIFdlIHRob3VnaHQgYWJvdXQgcmVkaXN0cmli dXRlIGNvbm5lY3RlZCBhcyB3ZWxsLCBidXQgc2luY2Ugd2UgY3VycmVudGx5IGRvbuKAmXQgaGF2 ZSBhY2Nlc3MgdG8gcm91dGUgbWFwcyB0byBmaWx0ZXIgb3V0IHRoZSB3YW50ZWQgbmV0d29ya3Mg KGFuZCBhYnNvbHV0ZWx5IG5vdCB3YW50IHRvIGV4cG9zZSBhbGwgaW50ZXJuYWwgbmV0d29ya3Mp IHdlIHRob3VnaHQgdGhlIHdheSB0byBnbyB3b3VsZCBiZSB0byBpbmNsdWRlIHRoZSB3YW50ZWQg b25lcyBhcyBwYXNzaXZlIGFuZCBpdCB3b3VsZCB3b3JrIGZpbmUsIGJ1dCBhcHBhcmVudGx5IG5v dC4NCg0KVGhlbiB3ZSB3aWxsIGVzY2FsYXRlIHRoZSBuZWVkIGZvciB0aGUgZmlsdGVyIG1lY2hh bmlzbSBhbmQgZ28gZm9yIHRoYXQgc29sdXRpb24gaW5zdGVhZC4NCg0KVGhhbmtzIGFnYWluLCBt dWNoIGFwcHJlY2lhdGVkIQ0KDQpSZWdhcmRzDQpGcmVkcmlrDQoNCkZyb206IEFjZWUgTGluZGVt IChhY2VlKSBbbWFpbHRvOmFjZWVAY2lzY28uY29tXQ0KU2VudDogZGVuIDIxIGFwcmlsIDIwMTUg MTg6MjMNClRvOiBGcmVkcmlrIExpbGplZ3Jlbjsgb3NwZkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6 IFtPU1BGXSBvc3BmIHBhc3NpdmUgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGFuZCByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgb3NwZg0KDQpI aSBGcmVkcmlrLA0KTm90ZSB0aGF0IHBhc3NpdmUgaW50ZXJmYWNlcyBhcmUgYSBub24tc3RhbmRh cmQgcHJvdG9jb2wgZXh0ZW5zaW9uIGFuZCBhcmUgbm90IHN1YmplY3QgdG8gSUVURiBzcGVjaWZp Y2F0aW9uLiBIYXZpbmcgc2FpZCB0aGF0LCB5b3UgaGF2ZSBtaXN1bmRlcnN0b29kIGhvdyB0aGUg cGFzc2l2ZSBmZWF0dXJlIGhhcyBiZWVuIGltcGxlbWVudGVkIGJ5IG1hbnkgdmVuZG9ycy4gVGhl IHBhc3NpdmUgaW50ZXJmYWNlIHN1Ym5ldCB3aWxsIGJlIGFkdmVydGlzZWQgYXMgYSBsb2NhbCBz dHViIG5ldHdvcmsgaW4gdGhlIFJvdXRlci1MU0EgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byB0aGUgYXJlYSBp biB3aGljaCB0aGV5IGFyZSBjb25maWd1cmVkLiBJZiB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBhZHZlcnRpc2UgdGhl c2Ugc3VibmV0cyBhcyBleHRlcm5hbCByb3V0ZXMgeW91IHNob3VsZCBub3QgY29uZmlndXJlIHRo ZW0gYXMgcGFzc2l2ZSBhbmQgc2hvdWxkIHNpbXBseSByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgeW91ciBjb25uZWN0 ZWQgcm91dGVzLg0KSG9wZSB0aGlzIGhlbHBzLA0KQWNlZQ0KDQpGcm9tOiBGcmVkcmlrIExpbGpl Z3JlbiA8ZnJlZHJpay5saWxqZWdyZW5AZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPG1haWx0bzpmcmVkcmlrLmxpbGpl Z3JlbkBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20+Pg0KRGF0ZTogVHVlc2RheSwgQXByaWwgMjEsIDIwMTUgYXQgOTow MyBBTQ0KVG86IE9TUEYgV0cgTGlzdCA8b3NwZkBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86b3NwZkBpZXRmLm9y Zz4+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbT1NQRl0gb3NwZiBwYXNzaXZlIGludGVyZmFjZSBhbmQgcmVkaXN0cmli dXRlIG9zcGYNCg0KDQpIaSENCg0KSSBoYXZlIGEgc2NlbmFyaW8gd2hlcmUgSSBydW4gdHdvIE9T UEYgaW5zdGFuY2VzIChBUykgb24gdGhlIHNhbWUgcm91dGVyLCBhbmQgaW50ZW5kIHRvIHNoYXJl IHNvbWUgcm91dGluZyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZW0uIE9uZSBpbnN0YW5jZSBhdHRh Y2hlcyBsb2NhbGx5IGNvbm5lY3RlZCBuZXR3b3JrcywgYW5kIG9uZSBpbnN0YW5jZSBmYWNpbmcg dGhlIGV4dGVybmFsIHdvcmxkLg0KDQpUaGUgbG9jYWxseSBjb25uZWN0ZWQgbmV0d29ya3MgYXJl IGluY2x1ZGVkIGludG8gT1NQRiBhcyBwYXNzaXZlIG5ldHdvcmtzLCBhbmQgYXJlIHN1cHBvc2Vk IHRvIGJlIHJlZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQgaW50byB0aGUg4oCcZXh0ZXJuYWzigJ0gT1NQRiBpbnN0YW5j ZSB3aXRoIHJlZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSBPU1BGLiBUaGlzIGRvZXMgbm90IHdvcmssIGFuZCBJIGNhbuKA mXQgZmluZCBhbnkgZG9jdW1lbnRhdGlvbiByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhpcyB1c2UgY2FzZS4gT3RoZXIg T1NQRiBuZXR3b3JrcyBhcmUgcmVkaXN0cmlidXRlZCBhcyBleHBlY3RlZCwgYnV0IHRoZSBwYXNz aXZlIG5ldHdvcmtzIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYXMgY29ubmVjdGVkIGV2ZW4gdGhv dWdoIHRoZXkgYXJlIGluY2x1ZGVkIGludG8gd2l0aCB0aGUgcGFzc2l2ZSBmZWF0dXJlLiBBcmUg cGFzc2l2ZSBuZXR3b3JrcyB0byBiZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGFzIGFueSBvdGhlciBsb2NhbGx5IGNv bm5lY3RlZCBPU1BGIG5ldHdvcmsgd2hlbiBpdCBjb21lcyB0byByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgT1NQRiwg b3IgaXMgdGhlcmUgc29tZSBkaWZmZXJlbmNlIGluIHRoaXMgcmVnYXJkcz8gSSB0aG91Z2h0IHRo ZXkgd291bGQgYmUgdHJlYXRlZCB0aGUgc2FtZSwgYW5kIGFtIHRyeWluZyB0byBjb252aW5jZSBz b21lIGRlc2lnbmVycyB0aGF0IGl0IGlzLCBidXQgSSBiZXR0ZXIgbWFrZSBzdXJlIGZpcnN0IHRo YXQgaXQgYWN0dWFsbHkgaXMgdGhlIGNhc2Ugb3IgZGlkIEkgbWlzdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB0aGUgcGFz c2l2ZSBmZWF0dXJlPw0KDQpUaGFua3MgYW5kIHJlZ2FyZHMNCkZyZWRyaWsNCg== --_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCCESESSMB105erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTQgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJ e2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQov KiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1z b05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJbXNvLWZh cmVhc3QtbGFuZ3VhZ2U6RU4tVVM7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28t c3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJs aW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dlZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUt cHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7 fQ0KcC5Nc29BY2V0YXRlLCBsaS5Nc29BY2V0YXRlLCBkaXYuTXNvQWNldGF0ZQ0KCXttc28tc3R5 bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxlLWxpbms6IkJhbGxvb24gVGV4dCBDaGFyIjsNCglt YXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6OC4wcHQ7DQoJ Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCW1zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdl OkVOLVVTO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE3DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsOw0K CWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6d2luZG93dGV4dDt9 DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJzb25hbDsNCglmb250LWZh bWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFp bFN0eWxlMTkNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO30NCnNwYW4uQmFsbG9vblRl eHRDaGFyDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOiJCYWxsb29uIFRleHQgQ2hhciI7DQoJbXNvLXN0eWxl LXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1zby1zdHlsZS1saW5rOiJCYWxsb29uIFRleHQiOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgltc28tZmFyZWFzdC1sYW5ndWFnZTpFTi1VUzt9 DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25seTsNCglmb250LXNp emU6MTAuMHB0O30NCkBwYWdlIFdvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjYxMi4wcHQgNzkyLjBwdDsN CgltYXJnaW46NzAuODVwdCA3MC44NXB0IDcwLjg1cHQgNzAuODVwdDt9DQpkaXYuV29yZFNlY3Rp b24xDQoJe3BhZ2U6V29yZFNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPjwvc3R5bGU+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDld Pjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRzIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBzcGlkbWF4PSIxMDI2IiAvPg0K PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQo8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91 dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQo8bzppZG1hcCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgZGF0YT0iMSIgLz4NCjwvbzpz aGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9IlNWIiBs aW5rPSJibHVlIiB2bGluaz0icHVycGxlIj4NCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9IldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMSI+DQo8 cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0QiPkhpITxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFu IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJj b2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5UaGFua3MgZm9yIHlvdXIgYW5zd2VyLiBXZSB0aG91Z2h0IGFib3V0IHJl ZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSBjb25uZWN0ZWQgYXMgd2VsbCwgYnV0IHNpbmNlIHdlIGN1cnJlbnRseSBkb27i gJl0IGhhdmUgYWNjZXNzIHRvIHJvdXRlIG1hcHMgdG8gZmlsdGVyIG91dCB0aGUgd2FudGVkIG5l dHdvcmtzIChhbmQgYWJzb2x1dGVseSBub3Qgd2FudCB0byBleHBvc2UNCiBhbGwgaW50ZXJuYWwg bmV0d29ya3MpIHdlIHRob3VnaHQgdGhlIHdheSB0byBnbyB3b3VsZCBiZSB0byBpbmNsdWRlIHRo ZSB3YW50ZWQgb25lcyBhcyBwYXNzaXZlIGFuZCBpdCB3b3VsZCB3b3JrIGZpbmUsIGJ1dCBhcHBh cmVudGx5IG5vdC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48 c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHls ZT0iY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+VGhlbiB3ZSB3aWxsIGVzY2FsYXRlIHRoZSBuZWVkIGZvciB0aGUg ZmlsdGVyIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBhbmQgZ28gZm9yIHRoYXQgc29sdXRpb24gaW5zdGVhZC48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIg c3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNs YXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+ VGhhbmtzIGFnYWluLCBtdWNoIGFwcHJlY2lhdGVkITxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxw IGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3 RCI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNw YW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5SZWdhcmRzPG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxl PSJjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5GcmVkcmlrPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9 Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpw PiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0iYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7 Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAjQjVDNERGIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6My4wcHQgMGNtIDBjbSAwY20i Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PGI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250 LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1RhaG9tYSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNl cmlmJnF1b3Q7O21zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOlNWIj5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O1Rh aG9tYSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O21zby1mYXJlYXN0LWxhbmd1YWdlOlNW Ij4gQWNlZSBMaW5kZW0NCiAoYWNlZSkgW21haWx0bzphY2VlQGNpc2NvLmNvbV0gPGJyPg0KPGI+ U2VudDo8L2I+IGRlbiAyMSBhcHJpbCAyMDE1IDE4OjIzPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBGcmVkcmlr IExpbGplZ3Jlbjsgb3NwZkBpZXRmLm9yZzxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTogW09TUEZd IG9zcGYgcGFzc2l2ZSBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYW5kIHJlZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSBvc3BmPG86cD48L286cD48 L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJm b250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5IaSBGcmVkcmlrLCZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+ PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5Ob3RlIHRoYXQgcGFzc2l2ZSBpbnRl cmZhY2VzIGFyZSBhIG5vbi1zdGFuZGFyZCBwcm90b2NvbCBleHRlbnNpb24gYW5kIGFyZSBub3Qg c3ViamVjdCB0byBJRVRGIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24uIEhhdmluZyBzYWlkIHRoYXQsIHlvdSBoYXZl IG1pc3VuZGVyc3Rvb2QgaG93IHRoZSBwYXNzaXZlIGZlYXR1cmUgaGFzIGJlZW4gaW1wbGVtZW50 ZWQNCiBieSBtYW55IHZlbmRvcnMuIFRoZSBwYXNzaXZlIGludGVyZmFjZSBzdWJuZXQgd2lsbCBi ZSBhZHZlcnRpc2VkIGFzIGEgbG9jYWwgc3R1YiBuZXR3b3JrIGluIHRoZSBSb3V0ZXItTFNBIGNv cnJlc3BvbmRpbmcgdG8gdGhlIGFyZWEgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGhleSBhcmUgY29uZmlndXJlZC4gSWYg eW91IHdhbnQgdG8gYWR2ZXJ0aXNlIHRoZXNlIHN1Ym5ldHMgYXMgZXh0ZXJuYWwgcm91dGVzIHlv dSBzaG91bGQgbm90IGNvbmZpZ3VyZSB0aGVtIGFzIHBhc3NpdmUNCiBhbmQgc2hvdWxkIHNpbXBs eSByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgeW91ciBjb25uZWN0ZWQgcm91dGVzLiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5Ib3BlIHRoaXMgaGVscHMsPG86cD48L286 cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Y29sb3I6YmxhY2siPkFjZWUmbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3Nw YW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXItdG9wOnNvbGlk ICNCNUM0REYgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzozLjBwdCAwY20gMGNtIDBjbSI+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6YmxhY2siPkZyb206IDwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5GcmVkcmlrIExpbGplZ3JlbiAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFp bHRvOmZyZWRyaWsubGlsamVncmVuQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbSI+ZnJlZHJpay5saWxqZWdyZW5AZXJp Y3Nzb24uY29tPC9hPiZndDs8YnI+DQo8Yj5EYXRlOiA8L2I+VHVlc2RheSwgQXByaWwgMjEsIDIw MTUgYXQgOTowMyBBTTxicj4NCjxiPlRvOiA8L2I+T1NQRiBXRyBMaXN0ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJt YWlsdG86b3NwZkBpZXRmLm9yZyI+b3NwZkBpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KPGI+U3ViamVj dDogPC9iPltPU1BGXSBvc3BmIHBhc3NpdmUgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGFuZCByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgb3Nw ZjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj48bzpwPiZuYnNw OzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6bm9u ZTtib3JkZXItbGVmdDpzb2xpZCAjQjVDNERGIDQuNXB0O3BhZGRpbmc6MGNtIDBjbSAwY20gNC4w cHQ7bWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6My43NXB0O21hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowY20iIGlkPSJNQUNfT1VUTE9PS19B VFRSSUJVVElPTl9CTE9DS1FVT1RFIj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iY29sb3I6YmxhY2siPkhpITxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xv cjpibGFjayI+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+SSBoYXZlIGEgc2NlbmFy aW8gd2hlcmUgSSBydW4gdHdvIE9TUEYgaW5zdGFuY2VzIChBUykgb24gdGhlIHNhbWUgcm91dGVy LCBhbmQgaW50ZW5kIHRvIHNoYXJlIHNvbWUgcm91dGluZyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBiZXR3ZWVuIHRo ZW0uIE9uZSBpbnN0YW5jZSBhdHRhY2hlcyBsb2NhbGx5IGNvbm5lY3RlZCBuZXR3b3JrcywgYW5k IG9uZSBpbnN0YW5jZQ0KIGZhY2luZyB0aGUgZXh0ZXJuYWwgd29ybGQuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05v cm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFu PjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xh c3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xvcjpibGFjayI+VGhl IGxvY2FsbHkgY29ubmVjdGVkIG5ldHdvcmtzIGFyZSBpbmNsdWRlZCBpbnRvIE9TUEYgYXMgcGFz c2l2ZSBuZXR3b3JrcywgYW5kIGFyZSBzdXBwb3NlZCB0byBiZSByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGVkIGludG8g dGhlIOKAnGV4dGVybmFs4oCdIE9TUEYgaW5zdGFuY2Ugd2l0aCByZWRpc3RyaWJ1dGUgT1NQRi4g VGhpcyBkb2VzIG5vdCB3b3JrLCBhbmQgSSBjYW7igJl0DQogZmluZCBhbnkgZG9jdW1lbnRhdGlv biByZWdhcmRpbmcgdGhpcyB1c2UgY2FzZS4gT3RoZXIgT1NQRiBuZXR3b3JrcyBhcmUgcmVkaXN0 cmlidXRlZCBhcyBleHBlY3RlZCwgYnV0IHRoZSBwYXNzaXZlIG5ldHdvcmtzIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJl IGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYXMgY29ubmVjdGVkIGV2ZW4gdGhvdWdoIHRoZXkgYXJlIGluY2x1ZGVkIGlu dG8gd2l0aCB0aGUgcGFzc2l2ZSBmZWF0dXJlLiBBcmUgcGFzc2l2ZSBuZXR3b3JrcyB0byBiZSBj b25zaWRlcmVkDQogYXMgYW55IG90aGVyIGxvY2FsbHkgY29ubmVjdGVkIE9TUEYgbmV0d29yayB3 aGVuIGl0IGNvbWVzIHRvIHJlZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSBPU1BGLCBvciBpcyB0aGVyZSBzb21lIGRpZmZl cmVuY2UgaW4gdGhpcyByZWdhcmRzPyBJIHRob3VnaHQgdGhleSB3b3VsZCBiZSB0cmVhdGVkIHRo ZSBzYW1lLCBhbmQgYW0gdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGNvbnZpbmNlIHNvbWUgZGVzaWduZXJzIHRoYXQgaXQg aXMsIGJ1dCBJIGJldHRlciBtYWtlIHN1cmUgZmlyc3QgdGhhdCBpdA0KIGFjdHVhbGx5IGlzIHRo ZSBjYXNlIG9yIGRpZCBJIG1pc3VuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIHBhc3NpdmUgZmVhdHVyZT88L3NwYW4+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFz cz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj4mbmJz cDs8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJs YWNrIj5UaGFua3MgYW5kIHJlZ2FyZHM8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJF Ti1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImNvbG9yOmJsYWNrIj5GcmVkcmlrPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJjb2xv cjpibGFjayI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYmxvY2tx dW90ZT4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCCESESSMB105erics_-- From nobody Tue Apr 21 09:38:10 2015 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 E134A1A0127 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:38:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 OZ31bjkDhZ18 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:38:07 -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 126B31AD355 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:35:08 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f790b6d000004359-5c-553618e6ebc5 Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 84.64.17241.6E816355; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:31:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:35:07 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Fredrik Liljegren , "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf Thread-Index: AQHQfE96iuP9ShoS9ECeQCIzjny9b51XqBgA///PP4A= Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:35:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCC@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <83E0A7F1DEB75344BA435B59EED83F261A4E8FCC@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D15BC9F695C7Ajefftantsuraericssoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHW/e5hFmowb93vBaT385jtmi5d4/d gcljyu+NrB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mr4vOYES0F3ccXTj7eZGhgPpnQxcnBICJhI vFse1MXICWSKSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgKKPEvb19TCAJIYHljBLvj9SD2GwCBhL/vx1nASkSEWhg lLjafpsFJCEs4CDR3jQDzBYRcJRoWj6HEcK2kvi1YD8zyDIWAVWJlZfSQcK8AuYSE1p2sUDM z5eYeOAhWDmngJ/Etm8PwGxGoIO+n1oDdgOzgLjErSfzmSAOFZBYsuc8M4QtKvHy8T9WEFtU QE9i5fUmNoi4ksSkpedYIXpjJH5Pe8MCsVdQ4uTMJywTGEVnIRk7C0nZLCRlEHEDiffn5jND 2NoSyxa+hrL1JTZ+OcsIYVtLvHp5lw1ZzQJGjlWMHKXFqWW56UaGmxiBsXZMgs1xB+OCT5aH GAU4GJV4eBfYmYYKsSaWFVfmHmKU5mBREuctu3IwREggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwen VANjsFSB5uTS/o8/7iRfnh1rtFNgHddjv2llCe3PFxdz7/0avlWl3CSttVt1iZqh0dOML1GP X3DyhzHHtNSsfyqnMPn69YTVd8Xtohdrnm3Rj2V1W314Q9OWCJsDnR7LsgsvbNFLvpq4yb5D iVWxeUXe7/9pbfd731y76eTaXr/39YaDNzlD+USVWIozEg21mIuKEwHsayqolgIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf 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, 21 Apr 2015 16:38:09 -0000 --_000_D15BC9F695C7Ajefftantsuraericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fredrik, Please work with me, OSPF WG is not necessarily the best place to discuss v= endor specific configurations. Thanks Acee :) Cheers, Jeff From: Fredrik Liljegren > Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 9:32 AM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" >, "ospf@iet= f.org" > Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf Hi! Thanks for your answer. We thought about redistribute connected as well, bu= t since we currently don=92t have access to route maps to filter out the wa= nted networks (and absolutely not want to expose all internal networks) we = thought the way to go would be to include the wanted ones as passive and it= would work fine, but apparently not. Then we will escalate the need for the filter mechanism and go for that sol= ution instead. Thanks again, much appreciated! Regards Fredrik From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] Sent: den 21 april 2015 18:23 To: Fredrik Liljegren; ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf Hi Fredrik, Note that passive interfaces are a non-standard protocol extension and are = not subject to IETF specification. Having said that, you have misunderstood= how the passive feature has been implemented by many vendors. The passive = interface subnet will be advertised as a local stub network in the Router-L= SA corresponding to the area in which they are configured. If you want to a= dvertise these subnets as external routes you should not configure them as = passive and should simply redistribute your connected routes. Hope this helps, Acee From: Fredrik Liljegren > Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 9:03 AM To: OSPF WG List > Subject: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf Hi! I have a scenario where I run two OSPF instances (AS) on the same router, a= nd intend to share some routing information between them. One instance atta= ches locally connected networks, and one instance facing the external world= . The locally connected networks are included into OSPF as passive networks, = and are supposed to be redistributed into the =93external=94 OSPF instance = with redistribute OSPF. This does not work, and I can=92t find any document= ation regarding this use case. Other OSPF networks are redistributed as exp= ected, but the passive networks seems to be considered as connected even th= ough they are included into with the passive feature. Are passive networks = to be considered as any other locally connected OSPF network when it comes = to redistribute OSPF, or is there some difference in this regards? I though= t they would be treated the same, and am trying to convince some designers = that it is, but I better make sure first that it actually is the case or di= d I misunderstand the passive feature? Thanks and regards Fredrik --_000_D15BC9F695C7Ajefftantsuraericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <81DCF21B6A97C245BC8A305A7DC91A34@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Fredrik,

Please work with me, OSPF WG is not&n= bsp;necessarily the best place to discuss vendor specif= ic configurations.
Thanks Acee :)

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Fredrik Liljegren <fredrik.liljegren@ericsson.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 9:= 32 AM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" = <acee@cisco.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive in= terface and redistribute ospf

Hi!

&n= bsp;

Thanks = for your answer. We thought about redistribute connected as well, but since= we currently don=92t have access to route maps to filter out the wanted ne= tworks (and absolutely not want to expose all internal networks) we thought the way to go would be to include the wa= nted ones as passive and it would work fine, but apparently not.=

&n= bsp;

Then we= will escalate the need for the filter mechanism and go for that solution i= nstead.

&n= bsp;

Thanks = again, much appreciated!

&n= bsp;

Regards=

Fredrik=

&n= bsp;

From: Acee Lindem (acee) = [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
Sent: den 21 april 2015 18:23
To: Fredrik Liljegren; ospf@ietf.or= g
Subject: Re: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf

 

Hi Fred= rik, 

Note th= at passive interfaces are a non-standard protocol extension and are not sub= ject to IETF specification. Having said that, you have misunderstood how th= e passive feature has been implemented by many vendors. The passive interface subnet will be advertised as a loca= l stub network in the Router-LSA corresponding to the area in which they ar= e configured. If you want to advertise these subnets as external routes you= should not configure them as passive and should simply redistribute your connected routes. 

Hope th= is helps,

Acee&nb= sp;

&n= bsp;

From: Fredrik Liljegren <fredrik.liljegren@ericsson.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 9:03 AM
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<= /a>>
Subject: [OSPF] ospf passive interface and redistribute ospf

&n= bsp;

 =

Hi!

 =

I have a = scenario where I run two OSPF instances (AS) on the same router, and intend= to share some routing information between them. One instance attaches loca= lly connected networks, and one instance facing the external world.

 

The local= ly connected networks are included into OSPF as passive networks, and are s= upposed to be redistributed into the =93external=94 OSPF instance with redi= stribute OSPF. This does not work, and I can=92t find any documentation regarding this use case. Other OSPF networks are re= distributed as expected, but the passive networks seems to be considered as= connected even though they are included into with the passive feature. Are= passive networks to be considered as any other locally connected OSPF network when it comes to redistribute = OSPF, or is there some difference in this regards? I thought they would be = treated the same, and am trying to convince some designers that it is, but = I better make sure first that it actually is the case or did I misunderstand the passive feature?

 

Thanks an= d regards

Fredrik

 --_000_D15BC9F695C7Ajefftantsuraericssoncom_-- From nobody Tue Apr 28 00:13:20 2015 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 6E52A1A19E3; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:13:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 DuKXhrAaT_Ze; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:13:16 -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 41CD01A0A6A; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:13:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BRX25536; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:13:13 +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; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:13:12 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.135]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:13:00 +0800 From: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" To: "akatlas@juniper.net" , "shraddha@juniper.net" , "cbowers@juniper.net" , "jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com" , Lizhenbin , "rkebler@juniper.net" , "Gabor.Sandor.Enyedi@ericsson.com" , "Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com" Thread-Topic: [MRT] draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 & draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees & An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees] Thread-Index: AdCBgr+0YN14KM3+QRezBqe2zf8iQQ== Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:12:59 +0000 Message-ID: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB394E0@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.212.150] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB394E0nkgeml512mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Cc: Rajeshmv , OSPF WG List , "Wunan \(Eric\)" , Kalyankumar Asangi , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: [OSPF] [MRT] draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00 & draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05 [OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees & An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees] 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, 28 Apr 2015 07:13:18 -0000 --_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB394E0nkgeml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Authors, I feel MRT-RED and MRT-BLUE MT-ID should be per MT. When MRT protection is desired on the network with multiple MT, How do we h= ave a unique MRT-BLUE and MRT-RED MT-ID since MT-ID is a global to system? Finalizing on MT-ID values for Red and Blue per MT is a open question I fee= l :) Please let me know your opinion. We need following changes in OSPF extension on MRT if we desired to support= MRT on multiple MT network. 5.3. MRT P= rofile TLV in Router Information LSA 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Profile ID(1) |GADAG Priority | Primary MT-ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | .............. | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Profile ID(n) |GADAG Priority | Primary MT-ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ TYPE: TBA-MRT-OSPF-1 (To Be Allocated by IANA) LENGTH: 4 * (number of Profiles) Profile ID : 1 byte GADAG Priority: 1 byte Primary MT-ID : 1 byte 6.1. MRT-I= neligible Link sub-TLV 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Primary MT-ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ TYPE: TBA-MRT-OSPF-2 in OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV TBA-MRT-OSPF-3 in OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV (To Be Allocated by IANA) LENGTH: 4 * (number of MT's on which this link is Ineligible) Primary MT-ID : 1 byte MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV Thanks & Regards Anil S N "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Po= stel --_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB394E0nkgeml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= Hi Authors,

=  

=      I feel MRT-RED and MRT-BLUE MT-ID should be per MT= .

When MRT protection is desired on the network = with multiple MT, How do we have a unique MRT-BLUE and MRT-RED MT-ID since = MT-ID is a global to system?

Finalizing on MT-ID values fo= r Red and Blue per MT is a open question I feel J

Please let me know your opini= on.

 

We need following changes in = OSPF extension on MRT if we desired to support MRT on multiple MT network.<= o:p>

5.3.  MRT Profile TLV in Router Information LSA

  = ;     0        =            1  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;    2         = ;          3=

  = ;     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4= 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

  = ;    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-&= #43;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= ;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  = ;    |         =      Type       &nbs= p;     |        = ;   Length         &= nbsp;    |

  = ;    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-&= #43;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= ;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  = ;    | Profile ID(1) |GADAG Priority | Primary MT-ID |   Reserved &= nbsp;  |

  = ;    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-&= #43;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= ;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  = ;    |         =             &nb= sp;   ..............       &nb= sp;            =     |

  = ;    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-&= #43;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= ;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  = ;    | Profile ID(n) |GADAG Priority | Primary MT-ID |   Reserved &= nbsp;  |

  = ;    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-&= #43;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= ;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 =

  = ;    TYPE:  TBA-MRT-OSPF-1 (To Be Allocated by IANA)

  = ;    LENGTH: 4 * (number of Profiles)

  = ;    Profile ID :  1 byte

        &nb= sp;    GADAG Priority: 1 byte

        &nb= sp;    Primary MT-ID : 1 byte

       &nbs= p; 

=  

6.1.  MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV

   =
;    0         =
          1   &=
nbsp;           &nbs=
p;   2          =
;         3
   =
;    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7=
 8 9 0 1
   &nbs=
p;  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-&=
#43;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+=
;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   =
;   |          =
    Type        &nbs=
p;    |         =
; Length           &=
nbsp;   |
   =
;   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-&=
#43;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+=
;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  = ;    | Primar= y MT-ID |            = ;       Reserved     = ;             &= nbsp; |

  = ;    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-&= #43;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= ;-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 =

 =

   =
;   TYPE:  TBA-MRT-OSPF-2 in OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
   =
;          TBA-MRT-OSPF-3 in O=
SPFv3 Router-Link TLV
   =
;          (To Be Allocated by=
 IANA)
   =
;   LENGTH: 4 * (number of MT’s on which this link is Ineli=
gible)
   =
;   Primary MT-ID : 1 byte
 =

          &nb= sp;            = MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV

=  

=  

= Thanks & Regards

= Anil S N

=  

= “Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you sendR= 21; - Jon Postel

=  

=  

--_000_327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF04FB394E0nkgeml512mbxchi_--