Hi Les, > On Mar 6, 2025, at 11:48 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Paul – > Thanx and understood. > This is a non-normative part of the draft. > We are adding advertisement of the remote link identifiers for bundle members > into the existing L2Bundle Member advertisements specified in RFC 8668 > (IS-IS) and RFC 9356 (OSPF). > > But in order to advertise them we have to learn them from somewhere. 😊 > How that is done is outside the scope of the draft, but we have made a couple > of suggestions – one of which was to learn them from LLDP. > But, as Acee (with your help) has pointed out, we mistakenly referenced the > Management Address TLV. > We will fix that. > Acee – I assume that will address your comment? (Thanx for catching this > mistake)
Yes. You could also add a non-normative reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl/ as a way to learn the remote IDs. Thanks, Acee > Les > From: Paul Congdon <paul.cong...@outlook.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:38 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem > <acee.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; > draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Adoption Poll for "Advertisement of Remote Interface > Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members" > -draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-02 > Les, > I have to be honest; I'm not fully up on your draft and I don't know what > you are trying to accomplish. I was just answering some general LLDP > questions. To be sure, I'd need to read your draft, but based on the > exchanges I've seen, it seems like a reasonable change. I would suggest that > you include instructions on how to encode the Port ID TLV to meet your > specific needs. I defer to Acee and others who have read your draft > thoroughly. > Paul > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:31 PM > To: Paul Congdon <paul.cong...@outlook.com>; Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com <scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com>; lsr > <lsr@ietf.org>; draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org > <draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: WG Adoption Poll for "Advertisement of Remote Interface > Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members" > -draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-02 > Paul – > Thanx for the quick response. > So if we modify Section 7 of the draft from: > “A router may also > run LLDP [802.1AB] on the bundle members to exchange local interface > identifiers with its neighbor, by using the LLDP Management Address > TLV.” > To > “A router may also > run LLDP [802.1AB] on the bundle members to exchange local interface > identifiers with its neighbor, by using the Port ID TLV.” > Are we on valid ground? > Les > From: Paul Congdon <paul.cong...@outlook.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:26 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem > <acee.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; > draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Adoption Poll for "Advertisement of Remote Interface > Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members" > -draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-02 > Hello Les, > The Port ID TLV is one component of the unique agent identifier. It is > combined with the Chassis ID TLV to create (what is intended to be) a unique > identifier within the network scope. It can certainly be used on its own to > identify the port somehow and you've listed some possibilities. > The Management Address TLV was intended to identify an address for managing > a particular OID, but most commonly used to identify that one address used to > manage the entire system. If you are looking for a per-port address, the > Port ID TLV is probably a better choice. In theory, you could advertise a > bunch of Management Address TLVs and specify different port attribute > management points (i.e., OIDs), but that would easily fill-up the LLDPDU. > As a side note, we allow multiple LLDPDUs now-a-days with the latest > enhancements to LLDP. > Paul > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 8:13 PM > To: Paul Congdon <paul.cong...@outlook.com>; Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com <scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com>; lsr > <lsr@ietf.org>; draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org > <draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: WG Adoption Poll for "Advertisement of Remote Interface > Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members" > -draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-02 > Paul – > Thanx for your input – and I certainly will defer to a Layer 2 expert. > But I think I confused things by mistakenly referencing the Management > Address TLV. I should have referenced the Port ID TLV (Section 8.5.3) which > is a Mandatory TLV in every LLDPDU – which has port specific information (not > Management Address specific information). > Apologies for the confusion. > As you show below, the Port ID TLV can include: > 6 Agent Circuit ID (IETF RFC 3046) > If I look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3046#section-3.1 > Possible uses of this field include: > - Router interface number ç=== > - Switching Hub port number > - Remote Access Server port number > - Frame Relay DLCI > - ATM virtual circuit number > - Cable Data virtual circuit number > Isn’t the port specific interface number what we have been referring to as > the “Remote Interface Identifier”? > Thanx again for your help. > Les > From: Paul Congdon <paul.cong...@outlook.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:48 AM > To: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; > draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Subject: RE: WG Adoption Poll for "Advertisement of Remote Interface > Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members" > -draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-02 > The Port ID TLV is a mandatory to include TLV in all LLDPDUs and helps form > the unique identifier for the LLDP agent. There are several ways to > represent the Port ID. > <image001.png> -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:31 AM > To: Paul Congdon <paul.cong...@outlook.com> > Cc: scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; > draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: WG Adoption Poll for "Advertisement of Remote Interface > Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members" > -draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-02 > Hi Paul, > That's what I thought - that the management address was not necessarily > associated with the local L2 interface. > The Port ID TLV also doesn't include the local ifIndex so it appears that > there is currently no way to learn this in LLDP - correct? > Thanks, > Acee > > On Mar 5, 2025, at 1:39 PM, Paul Congdon <paul.cong...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > Hello Acee, > > Good to hear from you. I've copied Scott Mansfield who worked on the LLDP > > YANG in case he has a different perspective. > > The Management Address TLV was designed with a bit of flexibility to allow > > you to advertise a management address used to reach a higher level entity > > for various management objects - not just the local ifIndex of the Layer-2 > > link. I'm not sure anyone has used this flexibility, or if the > > flexibility is sufficient for the original intent. Here is some text from > > the spec: > > The Management Address TLV identifies an address associated with the > > local LLDP agent that may be used to reach higher layer entities to > > assist discovery by network management. The TLV also provides room for > > the inclusion of both the system interface number and an object identifier > > (OID) that are associated with this management address, if either or both > > are known. > > Here are the usage rules from the spec as well: > > 8.5.9.9 Management Address TLV usage rules Management Address TLVs are > > subject to the following: > > • At least one Management Address TLV should be included in every > > LLDPDU. > > • Since there are typically a number of different addresses associated > > with a MSAP identifier, an individual LLDPDU may contain more than one > > Management Address TLV. > > • When Management Address TLV(s) are included in an LLDPDU, the > > included address(es) should be the address(es) offering the best management > > capability. > > • If more than one Management Address TLV is included in an LLDPDU, > > each management address shall be different from the management address in > > any other management address TLV in the LLDPDU. > > • If an OID is included in the TLV, it shall be reachable by the > > management address. > > • In a properly formed Management Address TLV, the TLV information > > string length is equal to: (management address string length) + (OID string > > length) + 7. If the TLV information string length in a received Management > > Address TLV is incorrect, then it is ignored and processing of that LLDPDU > > is terminated. > > Hope this is helpful, > > Paul > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 9:42 AM > > To: paul.cong...@outlook.com > > Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; > > draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org; Les Ginsberg > > (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > > Subject: Re: WG Adoption Poll for "Advertisement of Remote Interface > > Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members" > > -draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-02 > > Hey Paul, Is the interface number associated with the LLDP Management > > Address TLV always the local ifIndex of the Layer-2 link? > > Hope All is Well, > > Acee > > > On Mar 4, 2025, at 2:01 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > > wrote: > > > > Acee - > > > IEEE Std 802.1AB-2016 Figure 8-11 has exactly what we need. > > > In particular: > > > 8.5.9.5 interface numbering subtype > > > The interface numbering subtype field shall contain an integer value > > > indicating the numbering method used for defining the interface number. > > > The following three values are currently defined: > > > 1) Unknown > > > 2) ifIndex > > > 3) system port number > > > And > > > 8.5.9.6 interface number > > > The interface number field shall contain the assigned number within > > > the system that identifies the specific interface associated with this > > > management address. > > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 9:56 AM > > >> To: Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> > > >> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; > > >> draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote...@ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: WG Adoption Poll for "Advertisement of Remote > > >> Interface Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members" >> > > >> -draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle-member- > > >> remote-id-02 > > >>> Speaking as WG member: > > >>> I support adoption. > > >>> With respect to acquiring the remote ID, I don't believe that LLDP > > >>> include the > > >> remote ID. There is a port ID but I believe this is an L2 construct. > > >> If you're going to reference LLDP, you should add it to the "LLDP > > >> IETF Organizationally Specific TLV" as is done for BGP parameters > > >> in > > >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fda > > >> ta%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C2ef878cdb8384b8874e008dd5c1c4a84%7C84df9e7f > > >> e9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638767998757179357%7CUnknown%7CT > > >> WFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4z > > >> MiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZQy%2BvaB4Q > > >> luy3OjkcXMxhy1pCDBBiWRzGfkK1kqKKcw%3D&reserved=0 > > >> tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0fdffaebc088410bc > > >> b3 > > >> 808dd5c0d0812%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63876793 > > >> 32 > > >> 21668063%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLj > > >> Au > > >> MDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C% > > >> 7C > > >> &sdata=qBFUmw7pepHx3vPAxxxaCs3rfQi1RgKj6wgwRw2GJjY%3D&reserved=0 > > >> acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery/. Also, you don't mention (via an > > >> informational > > >> reference) >> > > >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C2ef878cdb8384b8874e008dd5c1c4a84%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638767998757196383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OHgxNtScVxKZyQzSz1UHpdScYmZ%2FO78NUBGeZOkHTnU%3D&reserved=0 > > >> which does, in fact, advertise the local ifIndex which is commonly used > > >> as the interface ID. > > >>> Thanks, > > >> Acee > > >>> On Mar 2, 2025, at 8:56 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >>> LSR WG, > > >>> >>> This starts the Working Group adoption call for >>> > > >>> >>> draft-glctgp-lsr-l2-bundle- > > >> member-remote-id-02. Please send your > > >>> support or objection to this list before March 17th, 2025. > > >>> >>> Thanks, > > >>> Acee > > >> _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
