Not going to repeat all the comments made before, +1 Regards, Jeff
> On Jul 24, 2018, at 23:08, Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> wrote: > > pretty obvious +1 here > > --- tony > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:41 AM Rob Shakir <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 to Peter. We should not define fragile solutions within the IETF. >> >> There are also a multitude of other solutions here already: >> >> 1) IGP adjacency with one router in each area (at a minimum - probably two >> for a robust system) over a tunnel. Deployed in many networks for years. >> 2) BGP-LS to one router (ditto robustness comment) in each area. >> 3) streaming telemetry of the LSDB contents via gNMI. >> >> All these solutions exist in shipping implementations - please let’s not add >> to the system complexity of the IGP here. >> >> r. >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:30 Peter Psenak >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Aijun, >>> >>> On 23/07/18 13:07 , Aijun Wang wrote: >>> > Hi, Peter: >>> > >>> > For routers that connected by LAN, the router will establish adjacent >>> > neighbor with DR, but not only DR advertises the connected prefixes. >>> >>> only the Network LSA includes the network mask, other routers would >>> include the interface address only. >>> >>> >>> > DR and >>> > DRother will all advertise type 1 and type 2 LSA with each other, then the >>> > process and proposal described in this draft will still work. >>> > We seldom use the ip unnumbered features in our network, can we ignore it >>> > then? Or other persons has some idea on such situation? >>> >>> the fact that you do not use unnumbered is not really relevant. IETF >>> defines solutions that MUST work for all possible scenarios, not only >>> for a specific one. >>> >>> > Anycast prefixes are often /32 long, this can be easily filtered by SDN >>> > controller because the link prefixes between two routers will be no larger >>> > than /32 for IPv4 network. >>> >>> protocol allows to advertise the same prefix with an arbitrary mask from >>> multiple routers without these routers being directly connected. Your >>> proposal is based on the assumptions that are incorrect. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> > >>> > Best Regards. >>> > >>> > Aijun Wang >>> > Network R&D and Operation Support Department >>> > China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, >>> > China. >>> > >>> > -----邮件原件----- >>> > 发件人: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > 发送时间: 2018年7月23日 18:20 >>> > 收件人: Aijun Wang; 'Peter Psenak'; [email protected] >>> > 抄送: [email protected]; 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'; 'Acee Lindem (acee)'; >>> > 'Dongjie (Jimmy)' >>> > 主题: Re: [Lsr] 答复: Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area topology >>> > retrieval >>> > >>> > Hi Aijun, >>> > >>> > On 23/07/18 11:16 , Aijun Wang wrote: >>> >> Hi, Peter: >>> >> >>> >> Actually, I consider mainly the point-to-point connection and the >>> >> numbered interface, which are normal in our network. >>> >> For the two situations that you mentioned, I will investigation the >>> >> possible solutions and feedback you later. >>> >> >>> >> For the point-to-point and numbered interface, do you have other >>> >> questions then? >>> > >>> > the fact that two routers announce the same subnet, does not mean they are >>> > connected together by p2p link. Anycast prefix is an example. >>> > >>> > The idea you are proposing simply does not work. >>> > >>> > thanks, >>> > Peter >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Best Regards. >>> >> >>> >> Aijun Wang >>> >> Network R&D and Operation Support Department China Telecom Corporation >>> >> Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China. >>> >> >>> >> -----邮件原件----- >>> >> 发件人: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >> 发送时间: 2018年7月23日 16:15 >>> >> 收件人: Aijun Wang; [email protected] >>> >> 抄送: [email protected]; 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'; 'Acee Lindem (acee)'; >>> >> 'Dongjie (Jimmy)' >>> >> 主题: Re: [Lsr] Regarding OSPF extension for inter-area topology >>> >> retrieval >>> >> >>> >> Hi Aijun, >>> >> >>> >> you are trying to reconstruct the topology of the remote area based on >>> >> the fact that two routers are connected to the same subnet. It does >>> >> not work >>> >> because: >>> >> >>> >> 1. connections between routers can be unnumbered 2. routers can be >>> >> connected via LAN, in which case only DR announces the prefix. >>> >> >>> >> In summary, what you propose does not work. >>> >> >>> >> thanks, >>> >> Peter >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 23/07/18 09:49 , Aijun Wang wrote: >>> >>> (Sorry for my previous mail sent wrongly to the IDR mail list, please >>> >>> reply on this thread within the LSR wg) >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, Peter: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am Aijun Wang from China Telecom, the author of draft about “OSPF >>> >>> extension for inter-area topology retrieval” >>> >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-ospf-inter-area-topo >>> >>> l ogy-ext/>, which is presented by Mr.Jie Dong during the IETF102 >>> >>> meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for your comments on the presentation material >>> >>> >>> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-lsr-osp >>> >> f-inte >>> >> r-area-topology-retrieval-00>. >>> >>> >>> >>> Below are my explanation that regarding to the question about “how it >>> >>> retrievals the inter-area topology based on the extension information”: >>> >>> >>> >>> Let’s see the graph that illustrates in Fig.1 at section 3 >>> >>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-ospf-inter-area-topology- >>> >>> e xt-00#section-3> of the draft(I copy it also below for your >>> >>> conveniences ): >>> >>> >>> >>> Assuming we want to rebuild the connection between router S1 and >>> >>> router >>> >>> S2 that locates in area 1: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1)Normally, router S1 will advertise prefix N1 within its router LSA >>> >>> >>> >>> 2)When this router LSA reaches the ABR router R1, it will convert it >>> >>> into summary LSA, add the “Source Router Information”, which is >>> >>> router id of S1 in this example, as proposed in this draft. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3)R1 then floods this extension summary LSA to R0, which is running >>> >>> BGP-LS protocol with IP SDN Controller. The controller then knows the >>> >>> prefixes of N1 is from S1. >>> >>> >>> >>> 4)Router S2 will do the similar process, and the controller will also >>> >>> knows the prefixes N1 is also from S2 >>> >>> >>> >>> 5)Then it can reconstruct the connection between S1 and S2, which >>> >>> prefix is N1. The topology within Area 1 can then be recovered >>> >> accordingly. >>> >>> >>> >>> Does the above explanation can answer your question. if so, I can add >>> >>> it into the context of this draft in updated version. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards. >>> >>> >>> >>> Aijun Wang >>> >>> >>> >>> Network R&D and Operation Support Department >>> >>> >>> >>> China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, >>> >> China. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Lsr mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Lsr mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>> >> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Lsr mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>> > >>> > . >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
