Hi, Acee: I have updated the draft according to the discussion with Peter on the list. The updated draft will be uploaded once the IETF repository reopen. We define new TLV to contain the stub-link related information within OSPFv2/v3 and ISIS respectively. The presentation will also align with it.
Together with the use case that described in Linda’s draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-lsr-5g-edge-compute-ospf-ext-01, we think this extension is necessary and should be considered within IGP. Thanks in advance. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Nov 11, 2020, at 02:01, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Aijun, > > Speaking as WG member: > > At least for OSPF, passive interfaces are not standardized in RFC 2328 or RFC > 5340. Hence, this purely a vendor concept. > Additionally, it is a property, albeit a vendor property, of a link and not a > prefix. It would be both inappropriate and profligate (considering the > scarcity) to allocate a prefix option for the purpose of identifying a > passive link associated with the prefix. Given your narrow use case of > identifying the edge of an IGP domain, it would certainly be better to > allocate a new TLV specifically for purpose and perhaps this doesn't belong > in the IGPs at all and should be something you propose solely for BGP-LS > consumption. > > Speaking as WG Co-chair: > > Given strong objections to this draft in its current form, I don't really see > a good reason for present it at IETF 109. I believe it would just be a rehash > of the discuss that has already taken place. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 11/9/20, 4:44 AM, "Peter Psenak" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Aijun, > >> On 09/11/2020 07:35, Aijun Wang wrote: >> Hi, Peter: >> >> Currently, the inter-AS link TLV is advertised within the Inter-AS-TE-LSA >> for OSPF and Inter-AS Reachability TLV for ISIS. >> But I think these two places are not suitable for the stub-link information. >> >> It seems that separating the stub-link information from the inter-as link >> information is better, because not all of the stub-links are inter-as link. >> If so, can we put the newly defined Stub-Link TLV within the Router LSA for >> OSPF and make it one new top TLV for ISIS? > > Router LSA does not have TLVs, you would have to add the data to > Extended Prefix Link TLV (RFC7684), or define a net top-level TLV under > the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA. > > For ISIS you don't have a choice really, you need to define a new > top-level TLV. > > thanks, > Peter > >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> Aijun Wang >> China Telecom >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 1:56 AM >> To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> >> Cc: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) >> <[email protected]>; lsr@i
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
