From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Fri Feb 3 09:45:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7247C21F85AA for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:45:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.243 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y41JsjQh7Dk7 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:45:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB4E21F85A3 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q13HjV6K006245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:45:32 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:45:31 -0500 From: Acee Lindem To: "OSPF@ietf.org List" Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:45:29 -0500 Thread-Topic: Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt Thread-Index: Aczim5+VViGBNvdnR+WblXCKPLdB1w== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OSPF] Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 17:45:33 -0000 I've reviewed the subject document and have a couple comments.=20 This document introduces some new dependencies since routers connected = to the hybrid network are using the DRs Router-LSA to originate their own R= outer-LSA. Hence, if some goes wrong with the distributed DR election algor= ithm, connectivity will fail differently than before. Is anyone concerned a= bout this? If so, we could add a requirement that the non-DR router and the= DR agree on who is DR prior to the non-DR router using the DR-Router's Rou= ter-LSA to originate its own.=20 The document needs a "Management Considerations" section that addresses= how the hybrid interface will be represented in the OSPF and OSPFv3 MIBs. = This would include the ospfIfType and ospfv3IfType. Thanks, Acee=20 From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Wed Feb 8 09:07:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCF521F8780 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:07:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.886 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.579, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X3iTPbV3GGAC for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772AB21F876E for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q18H7CZ4003101 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:07:13 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:07:07 -0500 From: Acee Lindem CC: OSPF List Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:07:05 -0500 Thread-Topic: OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AczmhBXxQMg91PI8QfC4zmDqgQ66eg== Message-ID: <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 17:07:18 -0000 As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Group = last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 AM = PDT on February 23nd, 2012.=20 Here is a URL for your convenience:=20 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt Thanks, Acee=20 On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for= OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?=20 > There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >=20 > There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >=20 > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >=20 > I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Wed Feb 8 09:08:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C936121F8780 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:08:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.468 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6fbnC40-faRS for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:08:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDBC21F877C for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:08:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q18H8efa003470 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:08:45 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.33]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:08:35 -0500 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Acee Lindem Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:08:32 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AczmhBXxQMg91PI8QfC4zmDqgQ66egAAC1hQ Message-ID: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF6190F91841E@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 17:08:58 -0000 Yes/support Regards, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ace= e Lindem Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:07 AM Cc: OSPF List Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF= " - As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Group = last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 AM = PDT on February 23nd, 2012.=20 Here is a URL for your convenience:=20 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt Thanks, Acee=20 On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for= OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?=20 > There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >=20 > There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >=20 > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >=20 > I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 >=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 chenxibj@cn.ibm.com Wed Feb 8 20:02:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05AD121F8542 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:02:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.957 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.041, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ktyyIloF6HEV for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:02:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (e23smtp04.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99EFF21F8540 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:02:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:46:53 +1000 Received: from d23relay04.au.ibm.com (202.81.31.246) by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (202.81.31.210) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:46:50 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q193v9p43211476 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:57:11 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q1942AJi006286 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:02:10 +1100 Received: from d23m0010.cn.ibm.com (d23m0010.cn.ibm.com [9.181.2.72]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q194297a006277 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:02:09 +1100 X-KeepSent: 90436F6E:55DADC18-4825799F:00152A35; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 Message-ID: From: Xi R Chen Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:01:16 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D23M0010/23/M/IBM(Release 8.5.1FP5HF337 | September 15, 2011) at 09/02/2012 12:01:16 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="0__=C7BBF30CDF86ACA58f9e8a93df938690918cC7BBF30CDF86ACA5" Content-Disposition: inline x-cbid: 12020817-9264-0000-0000-000000CB2039 Subject: [OSPF] OSPF multiple interfaces to the same subnet X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 04:16:50 -0000 --0__=C7BBF30CDF86ACA58f9e8a93df938690918cC7BBF30CDF86ACA5 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 DQpIaQ0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0N CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8 DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgICBldGgxICAgICAgICAgZXRoMiAgICAgICAgICB8DQogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgfA0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tfC0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICBldGgzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICB8DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICB8DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQoN CkRpZCBhbnlvbmUgdGVzdCB0aGlzIHNjZW5hcmlvIGJlZm9yZS4gQXNzdW1pbmcgYm90aCBldGgx IGFuZCBldGgyIGNvbm5lY3QNCnRvIGV0aDMsIGV0aDEgZXRoMiBhbmQgZXRoMyBhcmUgaW4gdGhl IHNhbWUgYXJlYSBhbmQgdGhlIHNhbWUgc3VibmV0IChMZXQncw0Kc2F5IDE5Mi4xNjguMi4wLzI0 KS4gRnJvbSB0aGUgUkZDLCBib3RoIGV0aDEgYW5kIGV0aDIgYXJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQNCnRvZ2V0 aGVyIHRvIERSIGVsZWN0aW9uIGNhdXNlIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBzYW1lIHJvdXRlciBJRC4gVGhlbiBh c3N1bWluZyBldGgyDQppcyBEUiwgZXRoMyBpcyBCRFIuDQoNCg0KTXkgcXVzdGlvbiBpczoNCg0K DQoxLiBXaGF0IGlzIHN0YXR1cyBvZiBldGgxP8KgIERvZXMgZXRoMSBoYXZlIG5laWdoYm9ycyBv ciBhZGphY2VuY2llcz8NCg0KDQpTb21lIGRvY3VtZW50cyBzYXksIGluIHRoaXMgY2FzZSzCoCBh bGwgaW5ib3VuZCB0cmFmZmljIGZvciB0aGUgUlRBIHdpbGwgdXNlDQpvbmx5IG9uZSBpbnRlcmZh Y2Ugb3V0IG9mIGV0aDEgb3IgZXRoMi4gdGhlIGluYm91bmQgdHJhZmZpYyB0byBSVEEgaXMgbm90 DQpsb2FkIGJhbGFuY2VkIGFjcm9zcyB0aGUgaW50ZXJmYWNlcy4NCg0KDQoyLiBUaGUgbmV4dCBx dWVzdGlvbiBpcywgaWYgb25lIGxpbmsgZmFpbHMgKExldCdzIHNheSB0aGUgbGluayBiZXR3ZWVu IGV0aDINCmFuZCBldGgzIGZhaWxzLCBidXQgdGhlIGludGVyZmFjZSBpcyBzdGlsbCBhY3RpdmUg KSwgY2FuIHRoZSByb3V0ZXJzIGRldGVjdA0KdGhhdCBhbmQgc3dpdGNoIHRoZSByb3V0ZSB0byBF VEgxPw0KDQoNCkkgdGVzdGVkIGl0IG9uIHNvbWUgcm91dGVycywgaXQgY2FuIG5vdCBzd2l0Y2gg dGhlIHJvdXRlIHRvIGV0aDEuIEl0IHdpbGwNCnNldCBldGgyIGFuZCBldGgzIMKgYXMgdHdvIHNl cGFyYXRlIERSLCBhZnRlciBsaW5rIGZhaWxzLiBBbmQgdGhlIHN0YXR1cyBvZg0KZXRoMSBpcyBh bHdheXMgYmFja3VwLiBXaGljaCBtZWFucywgaWYgSSBkZWFjdGl2ZSBldGgyICh0aGUgcHJpbWFy eQ0KaW50ZXJmYWNlKSwgZXRoMSB3aWxsIHR1cm4gdG8gcHJpbWFyeSBpbnRlcmZhY2UsIGVzdGFi bGlzaCBuZWlnaGJvcnNoaXAgYW5kDQp1cGRhdGUgdGhlIHJvdXRpbmcgdGFibGUuIE90aGVyd2lz ZSwgZXRoMSB3aWxsIGFsd2F5cyBrZWVwIHRoZSBiYWNrdXANCnN0YXR1cyBhbmQgbm90IGhhdmUg YW55IG5laWdoYm9yIG9yIGFkamFjZW5jaWVzLg0KDQpCZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMNCg0KQ2hlbiBYaSAo 6ZmI5biMKQ0KRGV2ZWxvcGVyLCBUQ1AvSVAgb24gSUJNIGkNCklCTSBDaGluYSBTeXN0ZW0gJiBU ZWNobm9sb2d5IExhYiBpbiBCZWlqaW5nDQpOb3RlczogWGkgUiBDaGVuL0NoaW5hL0lCTSAgRS1t YWlsOiBjaGVueGliakBjbi5pYm0uY29tDQpUZWw6KDAxMCk4MjQ1MDg0NA0KQWRkcmVzczoyOCxa aG9uZyBHdWFuIEN1biBTb2Z0d2FyZSBQYXJrLE5vLjggRG9uZyBCZWkgV2FuZyBXZXN0IFJvYWQs DQpIYWlkaWFuIERpc3RyaWN0IEJlaWppbmcgUC5SLkNoaW5hIDEwMDE5Mw0K5Zyw5Z2A77ya5YyX 5Lqs5biC5rW35reA5Yy65Lic5YyX5pe66KW/6LevOOWPt++8jOS4reWFs+adkei9r+S7tuWbrTI4 5Y+35qW8IOmCrue8lu+8mjEwMDE5Mw== --0__=C7BBF30CDF86ACA58f9e8a93df938690918cC7BBF30CDF86ACA5 Content-type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+PGJvZHk+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSI0IiBjb2xvcj0iIzMzMzMzMyIgZmFjZT0iQXJp YWwiPkhpPC9mb250Pjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjQiIGNvbG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIiBm YWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tPC9mb250Pjxicj4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjQiIGNvbG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlh bCI+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IHw8L2ZvbnQ+PGJyPg0KPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNCIgY29sb3I9IiMzMzMzMzMiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFs Ij4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgICBldGgxICAgICAgICAgZXRoMiAgICAgICAgICB8PC9mb250 Pjxicj4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjQiIGNvbG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+ICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPC9mb250Pjxicj4NCjxm b250IHNpemU9IjQiIGNvbG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICB8ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8PC9mb250Pjxicj4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjQiIGNv bG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAg ICAgICAgICAgfCA8L2ZvbnQ+PGJyPg0KPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNCIgY29sb3I9IiMzMzMzMzMiIGZh Y2U9IkFyaWFsIj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS18LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS08L2ZvbnQ+PGJyPg0KPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNCIgY29sb3I9IiMzMzMzMzMiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFs Ij4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICBldGgzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8PC9m b250Pjxicj4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjQiIGNvbG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+ICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfDwvZm9u dD48YnI+DQo8Zm9udCBzaXplPSI0IiBjb2xvcj0iIzMzMzMzMyIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0gIDwvZm9udD48YnI+DQo8 Zm9udCBzaXplPSI0IiBjb2xvcj0iIzMzMzMzMyIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDwvZm9udD48YnI+DQo8Zm9udCBzaXplPSI0IiBjb2xvcj0iIzMzMzMzMyIgZmFjZT0i QXJpYWwiPkRpZCBhbnlvbmUgdGVzdCB0aGlzIHNjZW5hcmlvIGJlZm9yZS4gQXNzdW1pbmcgYm90 aCBldGgxIGFuZCBldGgyIGNvbm5lY3QgdG8gZXRoMywgZXRoMSBldGgyIGFuZCBldGgzIGFyZSBp biB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcmVhIGFuZCB0aGUgc2FtZSBzdWJuZXQgKExldCdzIHNheSAxOTIuMTY4LjIu MC8yNCkuIEZyb20gdGhlIFJGQywgYm90aCBldGgxIGFuZCBldGgyIGFyZSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIHRv Z2V0aGVyIHRvIERSIGVsZWN0aW9uIGNhdXNlIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBzYW1lIHJvdXRlciBJRC4gVGhl biBhc3N1bWluZyBldGgyIGlzIERSLCBldGgzIGlzIEJEUi48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXpl PSI0IiBjb2xvcj0iIzMzMzMzMyIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPk15IHF1c3Rpb24gaXM6PC9mb250Pg0K PHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNCIgY29sb3I9IiMzMzMzMzMiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsIj4xLiBXaGF0IGlz IHN0YXR1cyBvZiBldGgxP8KgIERvZXMgZXRoMSBoYXZlIG5laWdoYm9ycyBvciA8L2ZvbnQ+PGZv bnQgc2l6ZT0iNCIgY29sb3I9IiMzMzMzMzMiPmFkamFjZW5jaWVzPzwvZm9udD4NCjxwPjxmb250 IHNpemU9IjQiIGNvbG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+U29tZSBkb2N1bWVudHMgc2F5 LCBpbiB0aGlzIGNhc2UswqAgYWxsIGluYm91bmQgdHJhZmZpYyBmb3IgdGhlIFJUQSB3aWxsIHVz ZSBvbmx5IG9uZSBpbnRlcmZhY2Ugb3V0IG9mIGV0aDEgb3IgZXRoMi4gdGhlIGluYm91bmQgdHJh ZmZpYyB0byBSVEEgaXMgbm90IGxvYWQgYmFsYW5jZWQgYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBpbnRlcmZhY2VzLjwv Zm9udD4NCjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjQiIGNvbG9yPSIjMzMzMzMzIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+Mi4g VGhlIG5leHQgcXVlc3Rpb24gaXMsIGlmIG9uZSBsaW5rIGZhaWxzIChMZXQncyBzYXkgdGhlIGxp bmsgYmV0d2VlbiBldGgyIGFuZCBldGgzIGZhaWxzLCBidXQgdGhlIGludGVyZmFjZSBpcyBzdGls bCBhY3RpdmUgKSwgY2FuIHRoZSByb3V0ZXJzIGRldGVjdCB0aGF0IGFuZCBzd2l0Y2ggdGhlIHJv dXRlIHRvIEVUSDE/PC9mb250Pg0KPHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNCIgY29sb3I9IiMzMzMzMzMiIGZh Y2U9IkFyaWFsIj5JIHRlc3RlZCBpdCBvbiBzb21lIHJvdXRlcnMsIGl0IGNhbiBub3Qgc3dpdGNo IHRoZSByb3V0ZSB0byBldGgxLiBJdCB3aWxsIHNldCBldGgyIGFuZCBldGgzIMKgYXMgdHdvIHNl cGFyYXRlIERSLCBhZnRlciBsaW5rIGZhaWxzLiBBbmQgdGhlIHN0YXR1cyBvZiBldGgxIGlzIGFs d2F5cyBiYWNrdXAuIFdoaWNoIG1lYW5zLCBpZiBJIGRlYWN0aXZlIGV0aDIgKHRoZSBwcmltYXJ5 IGludGVyZmFjZSksIGV0aDEgd2lsbCB0dXJuIHRvIHByaW1hcnkgaW50ZXJmYWNlLCBlc3RhYmxp c2ggbmVpZ2hib3JzaGlwIGFuZCB1cGRhdGUgdGhlIHJvdXRpbmcgdGFibGUuIE90aGVyd2lzZSwg ZXRoMSB3aWxsIGFsd2F5cyBrZWVwIHRoZSBiYWNrdXAgc3RhdHVzIGFuZCBub3QgaGF2ZSBhbnkg bmVpZ2hib3Igb3IgYWRqYWNlbmNpZXMuIDwvZm9udD48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpCZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHM8 YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpDaGVuIFhpICjpmYjluIwpPGJyPg0KRGV2ZWxvcGVyLCBUQ1AvSVAgb24gSUJN IGk8YnI+DQpJQk0gQ2hpbmEgU3lzdGVtICZhbXA7IFRlY2hub2xvZ3kgTGFiIGluIEJlaWppbmc8 YnI+DQpOb3RlczogWGkgUiBDaGVuL0NoaW5hL0lCTSAgRS1tYWlsOiBjaGVueGliakBjbi5pYm0u Y29tPGJyPg0KVGVsOigwMTApODI0NTA4NDQ8YnI+DQpBZGRyZXNzOjI4LFpob25nIEd1YW4gQ3Vu IFNvZnR3YXJlIFBhcmssTm8uOCBEb25nIEJlaSBXYW5nIFdlc3QgUm9hZCwgSGFpZGlhbiBEaXN0 cmljdCBCZWlqaW5nIFAuUi5DaGluYSAxMDAxOTM8YnI+DQrlnLDlnYDvvJrljJfkuqzluILmtbfm t4DljLrkuJzljJfml7ropb/ot6845Y+377yM5Lit5YWz5p2R6L2v5Lu25ZutMjjlj7fmpbwg6YKu 57yW77yaMTAwMTkzPC9ib2R5PjwvaHRtbD4= --0__=C7BBF30CDF86ACA58f9e8a93df938690918cC7BBF30CDF86ACA5-- From shraddha@juniper.net Thu Feb 9 01:37:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513C121F85D1 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:37:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2fiqGQTIagp0 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:37:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E076421F849D for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:37:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTzOT6J6Ofc56sM3NiA8tvC26HHW/7I+/@postini.com; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:37:44 PST Received: from p-emfe02-bng.jnpr.net (10.211.204.20) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:35:24 -0800 Received: from EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net ([fe80::bc40:adfb:bf45:2697]) by p-emfe02-bng.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:05:23 +0530 From: Shraddha Hegde To: OSPF List Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:03:08 +0530 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AczmhBXxQMg91PI8QfC4zmDqgQ66egAheqCg Message-ID: <8DC35521B692E2408565DD70C5576D511A90F35D1E@EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net> References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e4081efb-6d29-443c-8708-750833aec629 Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 09:37:47 -0000 In case of p2mp networks, type 3 links used to describe the interface addre= ss is omitted to hide the network. This can cause problems in the next hop calculation in certain cases and in= my opinion it is better to avoid installing a certain route (as done in c= ase of broadcast networks in this draft) rather than completely omitting it= . Consider a scenario when p2mp interfaces are configured in the NSSA area. A---------B |=20 ------C A,B and C are connected over a p2mp network configured in NSSA area. B & C are ASBRs importing external routes. B & C will have to include forwa= rding address corresponding to interface address when they advertise extern= al LSA to A.=20 We cannot hide the p2mp network in the above scenario as type 3 stub-links = are completely omitted, we cannot resolve the forwarding address for the ex= ternal LSAs originated by B & C. Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ace= e Lindem Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM Cc: OSPF List Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF= " - As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Group = last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 AM = PDT on February 23nd, 2012.=20 Here is a URL for your convenience:=20 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt Thanks, Acee=20 On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for= OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?=20 > There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >=20 > There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >=20 > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >=20 > I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 >=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 acee.lindem@ericsson.com Thu Feb 9 02:58:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6255C21F865C for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:58:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id efB-g-BAJQCR for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:57:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F2421F8636 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:57:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q19AvkYF012264; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:57:47 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:57:44 -0500 From: Acee Lindem To: Xi R Chen Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 05:57:42 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF multiple interfaces to the same subnet Thread-Index: AcznGaaDBGSLzmigS1Klr9EXHIrqmA== Message-ID: <98E58CE0-89D3-4C96-B84F-46FA39DA2FF9@ericsson.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF multiple interfaces to the same subnet X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 10:58:00 -0000 Q2hlbiwNCg0KVGhlIGJlaGF2aW9yIGZvciBjb25uZWN0aW5nIG11bHRpcGxlIE9TUEYgaW50ZXJm YWNlcyBvbiB0aGUgc2FtZSByb3V0ZXIgdG8gdGhlIHNhbWUgc3VibmV0IGlzIG5vdCBzcGVjaWZp ZWQuIEhlbmNlLCB0aGUgYmVoYXZpb3IgaXMgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gZGVwZW5kZW50LiBVc2Ug YSBMQUcgKElFRUUgODAyLjNhZCkuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCkFjZWUNCg0KT24gRmViIDgsIDIwMTIs IGF0IDExOjAxIFBNLCBYaSBSIENoZW4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCg0KSGkNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQp8IHwNCnwgZXRoMSBldGgyIHwNCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCnwgfA0KfCB8DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tfC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQp8 IGV0aDMgfA0KfCB8DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KRGlkIGFueW9u ZSB0ZXN0IHRoaXMgc2NlbmFyaW8gYmVmb3JlLiBBc3N1bWluZyBib3RoIGV0aDEgYW5kIGV0aDIg Y29ubmVjdCB0byBldGgzLCBldGgxIGV0aDIgYW5kIGV0aDMgYXJlIGluIHRoZSBzYW1lIGFyZWEg YW5kIHRoZSBzYW1lIHN1Ym5ldCAoTGV0J3Mgc2F5IDE5Mi4xNjguMi4wLzI0KS4gRnJvbSB0aGUg UkZDLCBib3RoIGV0aDEgYW5kIGV0aDIgYXJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgdG9nZXRoZXIgdG8gRFIgZWxl Y3Rpb24gY2F1c2UgdGhleSBoYXZlIHNhbWUgcm91dGVyIElELiBUaGVuIGFzc3VtaW5nIGV0aDIg aXMgRFIsIGV0aDMgaXMgQkRSLg0KDQpNeSBxdXN0aW9uIGlzOg0KDQoxLiBXaGF0IGlzIHN0YXR1 cyBvZiBldGgxPyAgRG9lcyBldGgxIGhhdmUgbmVpZ2hib3JzIG9yIGFkamFjZW5jaWVzPw0KDQpT b21lIGRvY3VtZW50cyBzYXksIGluIHRoaXMgY2FzZSwgIGFsbCBpbmJvdW5kIHRyYWZmaWMgZm9y IHRoZSBSVEEgd2lsbCB1c2Ugb25seSBvbmUgaW50ZXJmYWNlIG91dCBvZiBldGgxIG9yIGV0aDIu IHRoZSBpbmJvdW5kIHRyYWZmaWMgdG8gUlRBIGlzIG5vdCBsb2FkIGJhbGFuY2VkIGFjcm9zcyB0 aGUgaW50ZXJmYWNlcy4NCg0KMi4gVGhlIG5leHQgcXVlc3Rpb24gaXMsIGlmIG9uZSBsaW5rIGZh aWxzIChMZXQncyBzYXkgdGhlIGxpbmsgYmV0d2VlbiBldGgyIGFuZCBldGgzIGZhaWxzLCBidXQg dGhlIGludGVyZmFjZSBpcyBzdGlsbCBhY3RpdmUgKSwgY2FuIHRoZSByb3V0ZXJzIGRldGVjdCB0 aGF0IGFuZCBzd2l0Y2ggdGhlIHJvdXRlIHRvIEVUSDE/DQoNCkkgdGVzdGVkIGl0IG9uIHNvbWUg cm91dGVycywgaXQgY2FuIG5vdCBzd2l0Y2ggdGhlIHJvdXRlIHRvIGV0aDEuIEl0IHdpbGwgc2V0 IGV0aDIgYW5kIGV0aDMgIGFzIHR3byBzZXBhcmF0ZSBEUiwgYWZ0ZXIgbGluayBmYWlscy4gQW5k IHRoZSBzdGF0dXMgb2YgZXRoMSBpcyBhbHdheXMgYmFja3VwLiBXaGljaCBtZWFucywgaWYgSSBk ZWFjdGl2ZSBldGgyICh0aGUgcHJpbWFyeSBpbnRlcmZhY2UpLCBldGgxIHdpbGwgdHVybiB0byBw cmltYXJ5IGludGVyZmFjZSwgZXN0YWJsaXNoIG5laWdoYm9yc2hpcCBhbmQgdXBkYXRlIHRoZSBy b3V0aW5nIHRhYmxlLiBPdGhlcndpc2UsIGV0aDEgd2lsbCBhbHdheXMga2VlcCB0aGUgYmFja3Vw IHN0YXR1cyBhbmQgbm90IGhhdmUgYW55IG5laWdoYm9yIG9yIGFkamFjZW5jaWVzLg0KDQpCZXN0 IFJlZ2FyZHMNCg0KQ2hlbiBYaSAo6ZmI5biMKQ0KRGV2ZWxvcGVyLCBUQ1AvSVAgb24gSUJNIGkN CklCTSBDaGluYSBTeXN0ZW0gJiBUZWNobm9sb2d5IExhYiBpbiBCZWlqaW5nDQpOb3RlczogWGkg UiBDaGVuL0NoaW5hL0lCTSBFLW1haWw6IGNoZW54aWJqQGNuLmlibS5jb208bWFpbHRvOmNoZW54 aWJqQGNuLmlibS5jb20+DQpUZWw6KDAxMCk4MjQ1MDg0NA0KQWRkcmVzczoyOCxaaG9uZyBHdWFu IEN1biBTb2Z0d2FyZSBQYXJrLE5vLjggRG9uZyBCZWkgV2FuZyBXZXN0IFJvYWQsIEhhaWRpYW4g RGlzdHJpY3QgQmVpamluZyBQLlIuQ2hpbmEgMTAwMTkzDQrlnLDlnYDvvJrljJfkuqzluILmtbfm t4DljLrkuJzljJfml7ropb/ot6845Y+377yM5Lit5YWz5p2R6L2v5Lu25ZutMjjlj7fmpbwg6YKu 57yW77yaMTAwMTkzDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fDQpPU1BGIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KT1NQRkBpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86T1NQRkBpZXRm Lm9yZz4NCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vb3NwZg0KDQo= From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Thu Feb 9 07:13:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5314021F873E for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:13:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EkYoYIJOlrTl for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD42321F8741 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:13:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q19FCT5p011430; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:13:00 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:12:42 -0500 From: Acee Lindem To: Shraddha Hegde Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:12:40 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AcznPUThFzTIyJO9QfybiL7LInJMiA== Message-ID: References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <8DC35521B692E2408565DD70C5576D511A90F35D1E@EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <8DC35521B692E2408565DD70C5576D511A90F35D1E@EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 15:13:05 -0000 Hi Shraddha,=20 You raise a very good point.=20 On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Shraddha Hegde wrote: > In case of p2mp networks, type 3 links used to describe the interface add= ress > is omitted to hide the network. >=20 > This can cause problems in the next hop calculation in certain cases and = in my opinion it is better to avoid installing a certain route (as done in= case of broadcast networks in this draft) rather than completely omitting = it. >=20 > Consider a scenario when p2mp interfaces are configured in the NSSA area. >=20 > A---------B > |=20 > ------C >=20 > A,B and C are connected over a p2mp network configured in NSSA area. > B & C are ASBRs importing external routes. B & C will have to include for= warding address corresponding to interface address when they advertise exte= rnal LSA to A.=20 > We cannot hide the p2mp network in the above scenario as type 3 stub-link= s are completely omitted, we cannot resolve the forwarding address for the = external LSAs originated by B & C. I think there should just be a general statement that a forwarding address = MUST not be advertised when prefix-hiding is configured on the next-hop int= erface. However, we'll see what the authors have to say.=20 Thanks, Acee >=20 > Rgds > Shraddha >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= cee Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OS= PF " - >=20 > As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Grou= p last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. > Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 A= M PDT on February 23nd, 2012.=20 > Here is a URL for your convenience:=20 >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Acee=20 >=20 > On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >=20 >> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready fo= r OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?=20 >> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: >>=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>=20 >> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>=20 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>=20 >> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Acee >>=20 >>=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 shraddha@juniper.net Thu Feb 9 08:59:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5F421E8032 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:59:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WDZmJbpQ7-XI for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:59:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E6321E8026 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:58:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTzP7Uw1h5Eb4vzhDN2bU3bvlU6gkOeb9@postini.com; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:59:01 PST Received: from p-emfe02-bng.jnpr.net (10.211.204.20) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:56:28 -0800 Received: from EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net ([fe80::bc40:adfb:bf45:2697]) by p-emfe02-bng.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:26:26 +0530 From: Shraddha Hegde To: Acee Lindem Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 22:26:24 +0530 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AcznPUThFzTIyJO9QfybiL7LInJMiAADV8ZA Message-ID: <8DC35521B692E2408565DD70C5576D511A90F35DB3@EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net> References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <8DC35521B692E2408565DD70C5576D511A90F35D1E@EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: f8e27f27-03b2-4c3e-9447-119194e72cb6 Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 16:59:05 -0000 My concern is that we would be introducing a new feature which won't work w= ith some existing feature!. Could be a pain for operators who already use f= orwarding address for some optimization and want to use network hiding for = security. Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:43 PM To: Shraddha Hegde Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in = OSPF " - Hi Shraddha,=20 You raise a very good point.=20 On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Shraddha Hegde wrote: > In case of p2mp networks, type 3 links used to describe the interface=20 > address is omitted to hide the network. >=20 > This can cause problems in the next hop calculation in certain cases and = in my opinion it is better to avoid installing a certain route (as done in= case of broadcast networks in this draft) rather than completely omitting = it. >=20 > Consider a scenario when p2mp interfaces are configured in the NSSA area. >=20 > A---------B > |=20 > ------C >=20 > A,B and C are connected over a p2mp network configured in NSSA area. > B & C are ASBRs importing external routes. B & C will have to include for= warding address corresponding to interface address when they advertise exte= rnal LSA to A.=20 > We cannot hide the p2mp network in the above scenario as type 3 stub-link= s are completely omitted, we cannot resolve the forwarding address for the = external LSAs originated by B & C. I think there should just be a general statement that a forwarding address = MUST not be advertised when prefix-hiding is configured on the next-hop int= erface. However, we'll see what the authors have to say.=20 Thanks, Acee >=20 > Rgds > Shraddha >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 > Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in=20 > OSPF " - >=20 > As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Grou= p last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. > Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 A= M PDT on February 23nd, 2012.=20 > Here is a URL for your convenience:=20 >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 > On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >=20 >> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready fo= r OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?=20 >> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: >>=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>=20 >> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>=20 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>=20 >> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Acee >>=20 >>=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 alvaro.retana@hp.com Fri Feb 10 08:03:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB1B21F8606 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:03:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AhGSO-3i4ceL for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com (g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com [15.193.32.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B052421F85FB for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from G5W2206G.americas.hpqcorp.net (g5w2206g.atlanta.hp.com [16.228.43.185]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC0DDC517; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:02:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from G1W0396.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.236.31.9) by G5W2206G.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.228.43.185) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.289.1; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:00:06 +0000 Received: from GVW1338EXA.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.236.29.12]) by G1W0396.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.236.31.9]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:00:06 +0000 From: "Retana, Alvaro" To: Shraddha Hegde , Acee Lindem Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:00:04 +0000 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AcznPUThFzTIyJO9QfybiL7LInJMiAADV8ZAADBdxzA= Message-ID: <24646CE17826CF4A8DF71F9856C7E656595B5065F3@GVW1338EXA.americas.hpqcorp.net> References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <8DC35521B692E2408565DD70C5576D511A90F35D1E@EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net> <8DC35521B692E2408565DD70C5576D511A90F35DB3@EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <8DC35521B692E2408565DD70C5576D511A90F35DB3@EMBX01-BNG.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:01 -0000 Shraddha: Hi! Yes, you're right...there will be some loss of functionality, but only in t= he cases where the LSAs are omitted *and* an ASBR is present *and* the forw= arding address is already being used. We will update the draft to indicate the need to not use the forwarding add= ress in those cases, and to discuss the deployment considerations. Thanks!! Alvaro. > -----Original Message----- > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Shraddha Hegde > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:56 AM > To: Acee Lindem > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks > in OSPF " - >=20 > My concern is that we would be introducing a new feature which won't > work with some existing feature!. Could be a pain for operators who > already use forwarding address for some optimization and want to use > network hiding for security. >=20 > Rgds > Shraddha > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:43 PM > To: Shraddha Hegde > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks > in OSPF " - >=20 > Hi Shraddha, >=20 > You raise a very good point. >=20 > On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Shraddha Hegde wrote: >=20 > > In case of p2mp networks, type 3 links used to describe the interface > > address is omitted to hide the network. > > > > This can cause problems in the next hop calculation in certain cases > and in my opinion it is better to avoid installing a certain route (as > done in case of broadcast networks in this draft) rather than > completely omitting it. > > > > Consider a scenario when p2mp interfaces are configured in the NSSA > area. > > > > A---------B > > | > > ------C > > > > A,B and C are connected over a p2mp network configured in NSSA area. > > B & C are ASBRs importing external routes. B & C will have to include > forwarding address corresponding to interface address when they > advertise external LSA to A. > > We cannot hide the p2mp network in the above scenario as type 3 stub- > links are completely omitted, we cannot resolve the forwarding address > for the external LSAs originated by B & C. >=20 > I think there should just be a general statement that a forwarding > address MUST not be advertised when prefix-hiding is configured on the > next-hop interface. However, we'll see what the authors have to say. >=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > > Rgds > > Shraddha > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Acee Lindem > > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM > > Cc: OSPF List > > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks > in > > OSPF " - > > > > As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working > Group last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. > > Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to > 12:00 AM PDT on February 23nd, 2012. > > Here is a URL for your convenience: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > > > >> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is > ready for OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? > >> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you > convenience: > >> > >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt > >> > >> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: > >> > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ > >> > >> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OSPF mailing list > >> OSPF@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OSPF mailing list > > OSPF@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > > OSPF mailing list > > OSPF@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon Feb 13 22:24:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0A221E807D; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:24:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.112 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id stsegvRKyzbF; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F6221E807C; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 5A97972F1F0; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:20:12 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20120214062012.5A97972F1F0@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:20:12 -0800 (PST) Cc: ospf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OSPF] RFC 6506 on Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 14 Feb 2012 06:24:54 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6506 Title: Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3 Author: M. Bhatia, V. Manral, A. Lindem Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: February 2012 Mailbox: manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com, vishwas.manral@hp.com, acee.lindem@ericsson.com Pages: 20 Characters: 41992 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3-11.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6506.txt Currently, OSPF for IPv6 (OSPFv3) uses IPsec as the only mechanism for authenticating protocol packets. This behavior is different from authentication mechanisms present in other routing protocols (OSPFv2, Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS), RIP, and Routing Information Protocol Next Generation (RIPng)). In some environments, it has been found that IPsec is difficult to configure and maintain and thus cannot be used. This document defines an alternative mechanism to authenticate OSPFv3 protocol packets so that OSPFv3 does not only depend upon IPsec for authentication. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. 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 Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) 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 http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://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 zzhang@juniper.net Wed Feb 15 07:26:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B0F21F858B for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:26:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xXdhBtrwSB3H for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:26:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og115.obsmtp.com (exprod7og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD6C21F8532 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob115.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTzvOnZ2RdvYtHPdkkD22jH37/6arPisD@postini.com; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:26:25 PST Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:23:53 -0800 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:23:52 -0500 From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" To: Acee Lindem , "OSPF@ietf.org List" Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:23:51 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt Thread-Index: Acziro3G2gESgwQCS1WGSP0YyDjCdAHT5U1w Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D766B576C5@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e4081efb-6d29-443c-8708-750833aec629 Subject: Re: [OSPF] Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 15:26:26 -0000 Acee, Thanks for your comments. Please see below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com]=20 > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:45 PM > To: OSPF@ietf.org List > Subject: [OSPF] Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP=20 > Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt >=20 > I've reviewed the subject document and have a couple comments.=20 >=20 > This document introduces some new dependencies since=20 > routers connected to the hybrid network are using the DRs=20 > Router-LSA to originate their own Router-LSA. Hence, if some=20 > goes wrong with the distributed DR election algorithm,=20 > connectivity will fail differently than before. Is anyone=20 > concerned about this? If so, we could add a requirement that=20 > the non-DR router and the DR agree on who is DR prior to the=20 > non-DR router using the DR-Router's Router-LSA to originate its own.=20 Makes sense. How about the following? o If a router is not the DR and has a full adjacency to the DR, --> and both the DR and this router agree on the DR role, it MUST add a Type 1 link corresponding to each neighbor that is in state 2-Way or higher and to which the DR's router LSA includes a link. >=20 >=20 > The document needs a "Management Considerations" section=20 > that addresses how the hybrid interface will be represented=20 > in the OSPF and OSPFv3 MIBs. This would include the=20 > ospfIfType and ospfv3IfType. Sure we'll add that. Should the neighbor entry be enhanced to include per-nbr metric as well? Cu= rrent interface entry does include interface metrics, so it makes sense to = include per-nbr metric in the nbr entry. Thanks. Jeffrey >=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Acee=20 >=20 >=20 > = From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Wed Feb 15 08:53:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E3721E8032 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:53:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.213 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AFZUd+mLfUmR for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:53:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C523A21E802F for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:53:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q1FGrN0q009172; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:53:25 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:53:23 -0500 From: Acee Lindem To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:53:21 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt Thread-Index: AczsAlRWzGflBYN7Ssm3B+ZMJGnUJg== Message-ID: <1DCD8BED-E9CF-4057-8C69-BD920B179F49@ericsson.com> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D766B576C5@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D766B576C5@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "OSPF@ietf.org List" Subject: Re: [OSPF] Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 16:53:27 -0000 Hi Jeffrey, On Feb 15, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > Acee, >=20 > Thanks for your comments. Please see below. >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com]=20 >> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:45 PM >> To: OSPF@ietf.org List >> Subject: [OSPF] Comments on OSPF Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP=20 >> Interface Type - draft-ietf-ospf-hybrid-bcast-and-p2mp-00.txt >>=20 >> I've reviewed the subject document and have a couple comments.=20 >>=20 >> This document introduces some new dependencies since=20 >> routers connected to the hybrid network are using the DRs=20 >> Router-LSA to originate their own Router-LSA. Hence, if some=20 >> goes wrong with the distributed DR election algorithm,=20 >> connectivity will fail differently than before. Is anyone=20 >> concerned about this? If so, we could add a requirement that=20 >> the non-DR router and the DR agree on who is DR prior to the=20 >> non-DR router using the DR-Router's Router-LSA to originate its own.=20 >=20 > Makes sense. How about the following? >=20 > o If a router is not the DR and has a full adjacency to the DR, > --> and both the DR and this router agree on the DR role, it > MUST add a Type 1 link corresponding to each neighbor that is in > state 2-Way or higher and to which the DR's router LSA includes > a link. That's fine. Hope you guys agree with the additional verification.=20 >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The document needs a "Management Considerations" section=20 >> that addresses how the hybrid interface will be represented=20 >> in the OSPF and OSPFv3 MIBs. This would include the=20 >> ospfIfType and ospfv3IfType. >=20 > Sure we'll add that. >=20 > Should the neighbor entry be enhanced to include per-nbr metric as well? = Current interface entry does include interface metrics, so it makes sense t= o include per-nbr metric in the nbr entry. I'd say yes. While this is not documented as a neighbor configuration param= eter for P2MP networks, everyone has implemented it.=20 Thanks, Acee=20 >=20 > Thanks. > Jeffrey >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Acee=20 >>=20 >>=20 From rajeshsm@huawei.com Sun Feb 19 21:55:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD20621F8677 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:55:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qZtW4tiVsBFz for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:55:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F072B21F865E for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZO00JK6GFS2B@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:55:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZO00AO3GFMPB@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:55:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGY28315; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:55:03 +0800 Received: from SZXEML419-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.158) by szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:54:47 +0800 Received: from blrprnc03ns (10.18.96.92) by szxeml419-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:55:20 +0800 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:25:00 +0530 From: Rajesh In-reply-to: <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.18.96.92] To: 'Acee Lindem' Message-id: <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-us Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AczmhBXxQMg91PI8QfC4zmDqgQ66egJDwQLA X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> Cc: 'OSPF List' Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 05:55:17 -0000 Dear Acee, We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for OSPFv3] "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual LINK IPv6 address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the prefix hiding is configured" Please check. Thanks & Regards Rajesh -----Original Message----- From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM Cc: OSPF List Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Group last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 AM PDT on February 23nd, 2012. Here is a URL for your convenience: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt Thanks, Acee On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? > There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt > > There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ > > I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Mon Feb 20 06:20:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA5B21F861D for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:20:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6VCMZoZKGhwa for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA3A21F861C for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:20:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q1KEJ7f9006895; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:19:29 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.229]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:19:16 -0500 From: Acee Lindem To: Rajesh Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:19:15 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: Aczv2qD6pRMFkqr/Q0StoD7qeO2rGw== Message-ID: <368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com> References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> In-Reply-To: <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 14:20:06 -0000 Hi Rajesh,=20 On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: > Dear Acee, >=20 > We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for OSPFv3] > "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual LINK IPv= 6 > address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the prefix > hiding is configured" It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is not adve= rtised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC 5340, Section= 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address to terminate v= irtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with the prefix hiding = configured.=20 Thanks, Acee >=20 > Please check. >=20 > Thanks & Regards > Rajesh >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= cee > Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OS= PF > " - >=20 > As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Grou= p > last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. > Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 A= M > PDT on February 23nd, 2012.=20 > Here is a URL for your convenience:=20 >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >=20 > Thanks, > Acee=20 >=20 > On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >=20 >> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready fo= r > OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?=20 >> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: >>=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>=20 >> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>=20 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>=20 >> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Acee >>=20 >>=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 >=20 From rajeshsm@huawei.com Mon Feb 20 19:22:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C458321E802F for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:22:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xLmSocQTPLXG for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E83521E8016 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZQ00A3O41BIC@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:22:23 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZQ00HRO41B0Z@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:22:23 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml214-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGY80524; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:22:22 +0800 Received: from SZXEML417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) by szxeml214-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:22:05 +0800 Received: from blrprnc03ns (10.18.96.92) by szxeml417-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:22:21 +0800 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:52:20 +0530 From: Rajesh In-reply-to: <368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.18.96.92] To: 'Acee Lindem' Message-id: <000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-us Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: Aczv2qD6pRMFkqr/Q0StoD7qeO2rGwAa7kng X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> <368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com> Cc: 'OSPF List' Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 03:22:25 -0000 Dear Acee, Some more thoughts. 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks in OSPFv3" We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is configured on a interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to support OSPF and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. Thanks Rajesh -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM To: Rajesh Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Hi Rajesh, On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: > Dear Acee, > > We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for OSPFv3] > "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual LINK IPv6 > address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the prefix > hiding is configured" It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is not advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC 5340, Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address to terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with the prefix hiding configured. Thanks, Acee > > Please check. > > Thanks & Regards > Rajesh > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee > Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF > " - > > As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Group > last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. > Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 AM > PDT on February 23nd, 2012. > Here is a URL for your convenience: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt > > Thanks, > Acee > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > >> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for > OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? >> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >> >> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >> >> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > From yiya@cisco.com Wed Feb 22 05:21:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2914B21F86FE for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:21:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CT2Zclsqmb6c for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6882021F874F for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:21:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=yiya@cisco.com; l=3552; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329916895; x=1331126495; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4g8EukllleO5Ho97p9/cEMfLPnhyhmLdUV4LjJ7xeYA=; b=f46a/AK12VbWK+i0gs8VunJRcnIPoTwfxaaL7rHyNX55Ee1mwx7NoZ8e JE4wly2nzn7/HZDe9Vh3KMzc5x76J/+IANH0j9dpDJlfuD/dfeX4hNH9r CfL1Tjr8R5uxLI/fjf53Tt6hCqfiIwuM+mUszIeMJD8AAdZ/hgSTyazSH s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAKPqRE+tJXG+/2dsb2JhbABEsmmBB4FzAQEBAwEBAQEPAQodNAsFBwQLEQQBAQEjBAcnHwkIBhMJGYdfCZ9oAZcijEsMAQIgCQgLAw8NAgcNAwEMCoVUDAYIEgyCTWMEiE+MaZML X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,464,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="60920814" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2012 13:21:35 +0000 Received: from rtp-yiya-87111.cisco.com (rtp-yiya-87111.cisco.com [10.116.75.12]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1MDLYD5006916; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:21:34 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Yi Yang In-Reply-To: <000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:21:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <14D90FEF-DB8F-41FF-A27E-26CD8FED6AEB@cisco.com> References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> <368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com> <000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com> To: Rajesh X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: 'OSPF List' Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 22 Feb 2012 13:21:41 -0000 Hi Rajesh, Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be = configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF = calculations. Yi On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote: > Dear Acee, >=20 > Some more thoughts. >=20 > 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks in = OSPFv3" > We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is configured = on a > interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. >=20 > 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to support = OSPF > and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. >=20 > Thanks > Rajesh >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM > To: Rajesh > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only = Networks in > OSPF " - >=20 > Hi Rajesh,=20 >=20 > On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: >=20 >> Dear Acee, >>=20 >> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for = OSPFv3] >> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual LINK = IPv6 >> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the = prefix >> hiding is configured" >=20 > It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is not > advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC = 5340, > Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address to > terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with = the > prefix hiding configured.=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> Please check. >>=20 >> Thanks & Regards >> Rajesh >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > Acee >> Lindem >> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM >> Cc: OSPF List >> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks = in > OSPF >> " - >>=20 >> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working = Group >> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. >> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to = 12:00 AM >> PDT on February 23nd, 2012.=20 >> Here is a URL for your convenience:=20 >>=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Acee=20 >>=20 >> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>=20 >>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is = ready for >> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?=20 >>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you = convenience: >>>=20 >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>>=20 >>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>>=20 >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>>=20 >>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>>=20 >>>=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 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Wed Feb 22 05:54:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE39621F86FA for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.507 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u7j5PRClfJaa for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:54:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF7321F85C4 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:54:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1MDrvQ1027649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:53:58 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.229]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:53:58 -0500 From: Acee Lindem To: Yi Yang Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:53:55 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AczxaWwWgl0ZQKaaTxyT07tFszhLQw== Message-ID: References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> <368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com> <000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com> <14D90FEF-DB8F-41FF-A27E-26CD8FED6AEB@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <14D90FEF-DB8F-41FF-A27E-26CD8FED6AEB@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 22 Feb 2012 13:54:39 -0000 Hi Yi, The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs since t= hey are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding t= o the transit network =20 Thanks, Acee=20 On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote: > Hi Rajesh, >=20 > Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be configur= ed on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF calculations. >=20 > Yi >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote: >=20 >> Dear Acee, >>=20 >> Some more thoughts. >>=20 >> 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks in OSP= Fv3" >> We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is configured o= n a >> interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. >>=20 >> 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to support OSP= F >> and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. >>=20 >> Thanks >> Rajesh >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com]=20 >> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM >> To: Rajesh >> Cc: OSPF List >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks = in >> OSPF " - >>=20 >> Hi Rajesh,=20 >>=20 >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: >>=20 >>> Dear Acee, >>>=20 >>> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for OSPFv= 3] >>> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual LINK I= Pv6 >>> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the prefi= x >>> hiding is configured" >>=20 >> It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is not >> advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC 5340, >> Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address to >> terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with the >> prefix hiding configured.=20 >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Acee >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Please check. >>>=20 >>> Thanks & Regards >>> Rajesh >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Acee >>> Lindem >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM >>> Cc: OSPF List >>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in >> OSPF >>> " - >>>=20 >>> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Gr= oup >>> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. >>> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00= AM >>> PDT on February 23nd, 2012.=20 >>> Here is a URL for your convenience:=20 >>>=20 >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Acee=20 >>>=20 >>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>>=20 >>>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready = for >>> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?=20 >>>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenienc= e: >>>>=20 >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>>>=20 >>>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>>>=20 >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>>>=20 >>>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>>=20 >>>>=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 >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >=20 From mkarasek@cisco.com Wed Feb 22 06:46:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BC021F85CD for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:46:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nKzbU4UDJE2L for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:45:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8566E21F861D for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mkarasek@cisco.com; l=5421; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329921955; x=1331131555; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=vTOe4i58A4iVI2kK0zXNkZwaGMwkS17PKk31vOD8a5A=; b=SUwQ5JelRV3iU855OXaZPRahOXH33YnIABSSZoMaLl7HuG2BKs5sm1fd VMiB83CarGx1kHDpsRug26a/VlpSMqPCkRPMrDH3PjMo6Mz72nECWl2DU VuLBM1Hf2hqNtb6YF2KsyvWBJ4wt3SWW3WN7wTRFZcH98iaqNcT1lfThM A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAAP/RE+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABDsmaBB4FzAQEBBAEBAQ8BChMKNAsMBAIBCBEEAQEBCgYTBAEGASYfCQgBAQQBEggBGYdomHEBnwmMWAIgCT8EFYVeDAYIEgyCTWMEqCY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,464,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="66804890" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2012 14:45:54 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1MEjshH020158; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:45:54 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:45:54 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:45:51 +0100 Message-ID: <0E889A2A812B8E49ACBDDAF807F7D56A07AA8D54@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AczxaWwWgl0ZQKaaTxyT07tFszhLQwABKFWA References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com><529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com><000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com><368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com><000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com><14D90FEF-DB8F-41FF-A27E-26CD8FED6AEB@cisco.com> From: "Marek Karasek (mkarasek)" To: "Acee Lindem" , "Yi Yang (yiya)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2012 14:45:54.0255 (UTC) FILETIME=[ADDE25F0:01CCF170] Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 22 Feb 2012 14:46:02 -0000 Hi Acee, one can argue that if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, DR will not produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding to the transit network. To some extend it's equivalent of v2 behavior, prefix suppression has to be configured on DR in order to hide the subnet on the broadcast segment. In any case, it would be good if draft specify: - if prefixes are suppressed from Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA only, or also from link LSA. - if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, will be suppressed only own prefixes, or also prefixes learnt from BDRs/DROTHERs via link LSAs. I read current draft such that prefixes are suppresses only from Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA and if suppression configured on DR, DR will not produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding to the transit network. I'm OK with it, but other models are acceptable too. Thanks marek > -----Original Message----- > From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Acee Lindem > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:54 PM > To: Yi Yang (yiya) > Cc: OSPF List > Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks > in OSPF " - >=20 > Hi Yi, > The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs > since they are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA > corresponding to the transit network > Thanks, > Acee >=20 > On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote: >=20 > > Hi Rajesh, > > > > Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be > configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF > calculations. > > > > Yi > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote: > > > >> Dear Acee, > >> > >> Some more thoughts. > >> > >> 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks in > OSPFv3" > >> We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is > configured on a > >> interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. > >> > >> 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to support > OSPF > >> and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Rajesh > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] > >> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM > >> To: Rajesh > >> Cc: OSPF List > >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only > Networks in > >> OSPF " - > >> > >> Hi Rajesh, > >> > >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Acee, > >>> > >>> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for > OSPFv3] > >>> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual > LINK IPv6 > >>> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the > prefix > >>> hiding is configured" > >> > >> It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is > not > >> advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC > 5340, > >> Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address > to > >> terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with > the > >> prefix hiding configured. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Please check. > >>> > >>> Thanks & Regards > >>> Rajesh > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of > >> Acee > >>> Lindem > >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM > >>> Cc: OSPF List > >>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks > in > >> OSPF > >>> " - > >>> > >>> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF > Working Group > >>> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. > >>> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to > 12:00 AM > >>> PDT on February 23nd, 2012. > >>> Here is a URL for your convenience: > >>> > >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Acee > >>> > >>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > >>> > >>>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is > ready for > >>> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? > >>>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you > convenience: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt > >>>> > >>>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: > >>>> > >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ > >>>> > >>>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any > objections. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Acee > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> OSPF mailing list > >>>> OSPF@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> OSPF mailing list > >>> OSPF@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OSPF mailing list > >> OSPF@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From yiya@cisco.com Wed Feb 22 06:51:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1D021F8725 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:51:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pwzkuE3T2Vvh for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577ED21F8709 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:51:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=yiya@cisco.com; l=11941; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329922266; x=1331131866; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=OXJzQHsG4D9IDdSr1cz2PxGNFRywadf0zTKymiJdOSY=; b=JShfdG9XyP6jRKGxM0PqJRLwfdL0uTCM617DlVAK38wxinDGxzRHnOya ZqdZNvstduKI3U6CRbYJb8wHRd+RhXFIGup1CTfhY53v0Tpi12EAJ9w8k z+HDTd4zx31TPt5UnNOI7ntZJubHIvO3RaFVyGbAKm04bXg8217JVsdFh Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak0FAGEARU+tJV2b/2dsb2JhbABDoTyIFAGJFYEHgXMBAQEDAQEBAQ8BChBBCwUHBAsRBAEBASMEBycfCQgGEwkZh18JmHYBnwmMVwECIBwUCwkQAYRoAwwBFxMQOAwGCBIMgk1jBIhPjGmFXY0u X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,464,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217";a="60948076" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2012 14:51:04 +0000 Received: from [64.102.49.199] ([64.102.49.199]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1MEp4Qx006533; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:51:04 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--572243409 From: Yi Yang In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:51:14 -0500 Message-Id: References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> <368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com> <000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com> <14D90FEF-DB8F-41FF-A27E-26CD8FED6AEB@cisco.com> To: "Acee Lindem" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 22 Feb 2012 14:51:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail-1--572243409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Acee, Let me clarify what I meant. The DR will use the Link-LSAs to produce the intra-area-prefix-LSA for = the transit networks. However, as long as we omit the global address = from the intra-area-prefix-LSA, the global address won't be installed in = the routing table, no matter if the global address has been advertised = in the Link-LSAs or not.=20 In other words, for prefix-hiding, we don't need to omit the global = address in the Link-LSAs. Yi On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Hi Yi, > The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs = since they are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA = corresponding to the transit network=20 > Thanks, > Acee >=20 > On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote: >=20 > > Hi Rajesh, > > > > Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be = configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF = calculations. > > > > Yi > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote: > > > >> Dear Acee, > >> > >> Some more thoughts. > >> > >> 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks = in OSPFv3" > >> We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is = configured on a > >> interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. > >> > >> 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to = support OSPF > >> and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Rajesh > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] > >> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM > >> To: Rajesh > >> Cc: OSPF List > >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only = Networks in > >> OSPF " - > >> > >> Hi Rajesh, > >> > >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Acee, > >>> > >>> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for = OSPFv3] > >>> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual = LINK IPv6 > >>> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the = prefix > >>> hiding is configured" > >> > >> It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is = not > >> advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC = 5340, > >> Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address = to > >> terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with = the > >> prefix hiding configured. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Acee > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Please check. > >>> > >>> Thanks & Regards > >>> Rajesh > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of > >> Acee > >>> Lindem > >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM > >>> Cc: OSPF List > >>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only = Networks in > >> OSPF > >>> " - > >>> > >>> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF = Working Group > >>> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. > >>> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to = 12:00 AM > >>> PDT on February 23nd, 2012. > >>> Here is a URL for your convenience: > >>> > >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Acee > >>> > >>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > >>> > >>>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is = ready for > >>> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? > >>>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you = convenience: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt > >>>> > >>>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: > >>>> > >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ > >>>> > >>>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any = objections. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Acee > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> OSPF mailing list > >>>> OSPF@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> OSPF mailing list > >>> OSPF@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OSPF mailing list > >> OSPF@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-1--572243409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi Acee,

Let me clarify what I meant.

The DR will use the Link-LSAs to produce the intra-area-prefix-LSA for the transit networks. However, as long as we omit the global address from the intra-area-prefix-LSA, the global address won't be installed in the routing table, no matter if the global address has been advertised in the Link-LSAs or not. 

In other words, for prefix-hiding, we don't need to omit the global address in the Link-LSAs.

Yi



On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:

Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>

Hi Yi,
The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs since they are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding to the transit network 
Thanks,
Acee

On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote:

> Hi Rajesh,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF calculations.
>
> Yi
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote:
>
>> Dear Acee,
>>
>> Some more thoughts.
>>
>> 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks in OSPFv3"
>> We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is configured on a
>> interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA.
>>
>> 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to support OSPF
>> and OSPFv3 MIBs as well.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rajesh
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM
>> To: Rajesh
>> Cc: OSPF List
>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in
>> OSPF " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>
>>
>> Hi Rajesh,
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Acee,
>>>
>>> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for OSPFv3]
>>> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual LINK IPv6
>>> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the prefix
>>> hiding is configured"
>>
>> It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is not
>> advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC 5340,
>> Section 4.4.3.9.  Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address to
>> terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with the
>> prefix hiding configured.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Please check.
>>>
>>> Thanks & Regards
>>> Rajesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Acee
>>> Lindem
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM
>>> Cc: OSPF List
>>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in
>> OSPF
>>> " - <draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt>
>>>
>>> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Group
>>> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt.
>>> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00 AM
>>> PDT on February 23nd, 2012.
>>> Here is a URL for your convenience:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>>>
>>>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for
>>> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions?
>>>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenience:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt
>>>>
>>>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft:
>>>>
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/
>>>>
>>>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Acee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OSPF mailing list
>>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>


--Apple-Mail-1--572243409-- From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Wed Feb 22 11:48:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C80221E8049 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:48:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZMkZXg0-MEzd for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:48:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011F221E803D for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1MJm3RF026053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:48:03 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.229]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:48:02 -0500 From: Acee Lindem To: Yi Yang Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:47:59 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Thread-Index: AczxmuJ8MFbJaLgXTJ2UjWxyhxuePg== Message-ID: <9569B639-280C-465D-BFA9-81A81CF1FCE8@ericsson.com> References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> <368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com> <000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com> <14D90FEF-DB8F-41FF-A27E-26CD8FED6AEB@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: OSPF List Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 22 Feb 2012 19:48:07 -0000 Hi Yi, Ok - does the draft already say that all routers on a transit network SHOUL= D be configured with the same prefix visibility? Thanks, Acee On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Yi Yang wrote: Hi Acee, Let me clarify what I meant. The DR will use the Link-LSAs to produce the intra-area-prefix-LSA for the = transit networks. However, as long as we omit the global address from the i= ntra-area-prefix-LSA, the global address won't be installed in the routing = table, no matter if the global address has been advertised in the Link-LSAs= or not. In other words, for prefix-hiding, we don't need to omit the global address= in the Link-LSAs. Yi On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: Hi Yi, The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs since t= hey are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding t= o the transit network Thanks, Acee On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote: > Hi Rajesh, > > Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be configur= ed on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF calculations. > > Yi > > > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote: > >> Dear Acee, >> >> Some more thoughts. >> >> 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks in OSP= Fv3" >> We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is configured o= n a >> interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. >> >> 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to support OSP= F >> and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. >> >> Thanks >> Rajesh >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM >> To: Rajesh >> Cc: OSPF List >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks = in >> OSPF " - >> >> Hi Rajesh, >> >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: >> >>> Dear Acee, >>> >>> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for OSPFv= 3] >>> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual LINK I= Pv6 >>> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the prefi= x >>> hiding is configured" >> >> It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is not >> advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC 5340, >> Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address to >> terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with the >> prefix hiding configured. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> >> >>> >>> Please check. >>> >>> Thanks & Regards >>> Rajesh >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-= bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Acee >>> Lindem >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM >>> Cc: OSPF List >>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in >> OSPF >>> " - >>> >>> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF Working Gr= oup >>> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. >>> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to 12:00= AM >>> PDT on February 23nd, 2012. >>> Here is a URL for your convenience: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>> >>>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready = for >>> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? >>>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you convenienc= e: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>>> >>>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>>> >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>>> >>>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any objections. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OSPF mailing list >>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> OSPF@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > From michael_barnes@usa.net Wed Feb 22 12:55:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3622021E8014 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:55:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QhkxAzk+l7yz for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:55:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmsout02.mbox.net (cmsout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BD221F864D for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:55:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from cmsout02.mbox.net (co02-lo [127.0.0.1]) by cmsout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946E61346D8; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:55:40 +0000 (GMT) X-USANET-Received: from cmsout02.mbox.net [127.0.0.1] by cmsout02.mbox.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.72B) with ESMTP id 006qBVu4l2256M02; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:55:36 -0000 X-USANET-Routed: 3 gwsout-vs Q:bmvirus Received: from cmsapps02.cms.usa.net [165.212.11.138] by cmsout02.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.72B) with ESMTP id XID032qBVu4l6034X02; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:55:36 -0000 X-USANET-Source: 165.212.11.138 IN michael_barnes@usa.net cmsapps02.cms.usa.net X-USANET-MsgId: XID032qBVu4l6034X02 Received: from [10.33.12.117] [128.107.239.233] by cmsapps02.cms.usa.net (ESMTPSA/michael_barnes@usa.net) via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.72B) with ESMTPSA id 844qBVu4K1168M38; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:55:36 -0000 X-USANET-Auth: 128.107.239.233 AUTH michael_barnes@usa.net [10.33.12.117] Message-ID: <4F455647.9060506@usa.net> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:55:35 -0800 From: Michael Barnes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ospf@ietf.org References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com><529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com><000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com><368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com><000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com><14D90FEF-DB8F-41FF-A27E-26CD8FED6AEB@cisco.com> <0E889A2A812B8E49ACBDDAF807F7D56A07AA8D54@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <0E889A2A812B8E49ACBDDAF807F7D56A07AA8D54@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Z-USANET-MsgId: XID844qBVu4K1168X38 Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 22 Feb 2012 20:55:46 -0000 Folks, To expand on Marek's comment, please consider the scenario of a transit link with routers A and B (and perhaps others) where A is the DR and configured with prefix suppression but B has a global prefix which needs to be advertised. In this scenario A must include B's prefix in its intra-area-prefix LSA for the Link. Therefor I believe the best way to handle transit links is for prefixes to only be suppressed from Link LSAs. The DR in this case will not have put its own global prefix in its Link LSA and that will keep it out of the intra-area-prefix LSA but the DR prefix LSA can still be built according to RFC5340 section 4.4.3.9 Regards, Michael On 02/22/2012 06:45 AM, Marek Karasek (mkarasek) wrote: > Hi Acee, > > one can argue that if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, DR will > not produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding to the transit network. > To some extend it's equivalent of v2 behavior, prefix suppression has to > be configured on DR in order to hide the subnet on the broadcast > segment. > > In any case, it would be good if draft specify: > - if prefixes are suppressed from Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA only, or also > from link LSA. > - if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, will be suppressed only > own prefixes, or also prefixes learnt from BDRs/DROTHERs via link LSAs. > > I read current draft such that prefixes are suppresses only from > Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA and if suppression configured on DR, DR will not > produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA > corresponding to the transit network. I'm OK with it, but other models > are acceptable too. > > Thanks marek > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of >> Acee Lindem >> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:54 PM >> To: Yi Yang (yiya) >> Cc: OSPF List >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only > Networks >> in OSPF " - >> >> Hi Yi, >> The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs >> since they are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA >> corresponding to the transit network >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote: >> >>> Hi Rajesh, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be >> configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF >> calculations. >>> >>> Yi >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Acee, >>>> >>>> Some more thoughts. >>>> >>>> 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks > in >> OSPFv3" >>>> We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is >> configured on a >>>> interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. >>>> >>>> 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to > support >> OSPF >>>> and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Rajesh >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM >>>> To: Rajesh >>>> Cc: OSPF List >>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only >> Networks in >>>> OSPF " - >>>> >>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Acee, >>>>> >>>>> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for >> OSPFv3] >>>>> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual >> LINK IPv6 >>>>> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the >> prefix >>>>> hiding is configured" >>>> >>>> It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is >> not >>>> advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC >> 5340, >>>> Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address >> to >>>> terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with >> the >>>> prefix hiding configured. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please check. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks& Regards >>>>> Rajesh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of >>>> Acee >>>>> Lindem >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM >>>>> Cc: OSPF List >>>>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only > Networks >> in >>>> OSPF >>>>> " - >>>>> >>>>> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF >> Working Group >>>>> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. >>>>> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to >> 12:00 AM >>>>> PDT on February 23nd, 2012. >>>>> Here is a URL for your convenience: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is >> ready for >>>>> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? >>>>>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you >> convenience: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any >> objections. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Acee >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OSPF mailing list >>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rajeshsm@huawei.com Wed Feb 22 20:54:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4284321F853C for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:54:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NIkJUtFxmxGd for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:54:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E369721F8507 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZT008F8XJUCQ@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:52:43 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZT00L5FXJU4R@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ospf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:52:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHA05357; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:52:42 +0800 Received: from SZXEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) by szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:52:22 +0800 Received: from blrprnc03ns (10.18.96.92) by szxeml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:52:39 +0800 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:38 +0530 From: Rajesh In-reply-to: <4F455647.9060506@usa.net> X-Originating-IP: [10.18.96.92] To: 'Michael Barnes' , ospf@ietf.org Message-id: <000601ccf1e6$f8353370$e89f9a50$@com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-us Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AczxpF3yfZ1YJCYDQfSCbPiJokpDswAQNshg X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <84AB6152-7E34-4E21-9D2E-32DB3ACD93DE@ericsson.com> <529797C2-F390-4224-A1DC-EBDC5142BC9F@ericsson.com> <000501ccef94$2f162340$8d4269c0$@com> <368D3284-15EA-49C6-9868-5633EA079E8A@ericsson.com> <000001ccf048$05e3d2b0$11ab7810$@com> <14D90FEF-DB8F-41FF-A27E-26CD8FED6AEB@cisco.com> <0E889A2A812B8E49ACBDDAF807F7D56A07AA8D54@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> <4F455647.9060506@usa.net> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 23 Feb 2012 04:54:57 -0000 Dear Michael, I agree with you. "Best way to handle transit links is for prefixes to only be suppressed from Link LSAs". Above solution will help us In a partial deployment scenario, where upgraded routers (NON-DR with prefix hiding configured) and not-yet-upgraded routers(DR) may coexist. Thanks & Regards Rajesh -----Original Message----- From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Barnes Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:26 AM To: ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only Networks in OSPF " - Folks, To expand on Marek's comment, please consider the scenario of a transit link with routers A and B (and perhaps others) where A is the DR and configured with prefix suppression but B has a global prefix which needs to be advertised. In this scenario A must include B's prefix in its intra-area-prefix LSA for the Link. Therefor I believe the best way to handle transit links is for prefixes to only be suppressed from Link LSAs. The DR in this case will not have put its own global prefix in its Link LSA and that will keep it out of the intra-area-prefix LSA but the DR prefix LSA can still be built according to RFC5340 section 4.4.3.9 Regards, Michael On 02/22/2012 06:45 AM, Marek Karasek (mkarasek) wrote: > Hi Acee, > > one can argue that if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, DR will > not produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA corresponding to the transit network. > To some extend it's equivalent of v2 behavior, prefix suppression has to > be configured on DR in order to hide the subnet on the broadcast > segment. > > In any case, it would be good if draft specify: > - if prefixes are suppressed from Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA only, or also > from link LSA. > - if prefix-suppression is configured on DR, will be suppressed only > own prefixes, or also prefixes learnt from BDRs/DROTHERs via link LSAs. > > I read current draft such that prefixes are suppresses only from > Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA and if suppression configured on DR, DR will not > produce Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA > corresponding to the transit network. I'm OK with it, but other models > are acceptable too. > > Thanks marek > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of >> Acee Lindem >> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:54 PM >> To: Yi Yang (yiya) >> Cc: OSPF List >> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only > Networks >> in OSPF " - >> >> Hi Yi, >> The global addresses do need to be suppressed from OSPFv3 Link-LSAs >> since they are used by the DR to produce the Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA >> corresponding to the transit network >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Yi Yang wrote: >> >>> Hi Rajesh, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments. I agree that prefix-hiding must not be >> configured on VL interface. But link-LSAs are not being used in SPF >> calculations. >>> >>> Yi >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Rajesh wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Acee, >>>> >>>> Some more thoughts. >>>> >>>> 1) In section 3 of this draft " Hiding IPv6 Transit-only Networks > in >> OSPFv3" >>>> We can also mention about LINK LSA. If the prefix hiding is >> configured on a >>>> interface, then no need to mention global prefixes in Link LSA. >>>> >>>> 2) For prefix hiding configuration option, may be we need to > support >> OSPF >>>> and OSPFv3 MIBs as well. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Rajesh >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:49 PM >>>> To: Rajesh >>>> Cc: OSPF List >>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only >> Networks in >>>> OSPF " - >>>> >>>> Hi Rajesh, >>>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Rajesh wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Acee, >>>>> >>>>> We can add one statement in section 3 of this draft [which is for >> OSPFv3] >>>>> "LA-bit prefix we advertise in intra area prefix LSA for Virtual >> LINK IPv6 >>>>> address discovery, must not be taken from the interface where the >> prefix >>>>> hiding is configured" >>>> >>>> It is somewhat obvious that you wouldn't choose an address that is >> not >>>> advertised. However, I guess it wouldn't hurt to add that the RFC >> 5340, >>>> Section 4.4.3.9. Intra-Area-Prefix-LSAs, selection an IPv6 address >> to >>>> terminate virtual links will be modified to exclude interfaces with >> the >>>> prefix hiding configured. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please check. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks& Regards >>>>> Rajesh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: ospf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of >>>> Acee >>>>> Lindem >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 10:37 PM >>>>> Cc: OSPF List >>>>> Subject: [OSPF] OSPF WG Last Call for "Hiding Transit-only > Networks >> in >>>> OSPF >>>>> " - >>>>> >>>>> As I have heard no objections, I'm beginning the 2 week OSPF >> Working Group >>>>> last call for draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt. >>>>> Please review the draft and post your last call comments prior to >> 12:00 AM >>>>> PDT on February 23nd, 2012. >>>>> Here is a URL for your convenience: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-02.txt >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Acee >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As WG co-chair, I have reviewed this document and believe it is >> ready for >>>>> OSPF WG last call. Any other opinions? >>>>>> There is at least one implementation. Here is a URL for you >> convenience: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-hiding-01.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> There is an IPR disclosure on this draft: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1423/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I will start WG last call next week if I don't hear any >> objections. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Acee >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OSPF mailing list >>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From shtsuchi@cisco.com Thu Feb 23 21:04:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8437D11E8072 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:04:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.632, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_92=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LsadkoS8zbAg for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:04:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F115711E80B5 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:04:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shtsuchi@cisco.com; l=189; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330059854; x=1331269454; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=4/wPOji2zC3qQaQnshRPl7VZtCIgvbTvvfPFCpJoEqc=; b=PpxuHaVnMmBDCAWesmafBZSqGY96//4trjIaR7+kK2QbF8tzLHGB3GJW 7+ljiretF27kvizHcQ8WMW+lirWoQTGqr6o9XiZpQP5PT5DGcYh2eNYKs dOMZ9cky7fag+11c4H6+0xhpxmHNHzpQ3014KtWsXOQxHCmlaluQ0J0wE 0=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,474,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="32166119" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2012 05:04:13 +0000 Received: from [64.104.52.236] (dhcp-tmt-wirelessdata-64-104-52-236.cisco.com [64.104.52.236]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1O54CVM031009; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:04:13 GMT Message-ID: <4F471A4C.1020107@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:04:12 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ospf@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis@tools.ietf.org Subject: [OSPF] status of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 24 Feb 2012 05:04:14 -0000 Hi After this draft be WG documents,it expired. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis/ Was there any objection? or just maintenance issue? Regards, -Shishio From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Mon Feb 27 14:24:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E457A21E8034 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:24:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.215 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_92=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qTaY2yueXFvN for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:24:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC4621E8026 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:24:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q1RMNvix027673; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:23:59 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.229]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:23:59 -0500 From: Acee Lindem To: Shishio Tsuchiya Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:23:58 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OSPF] status of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis Thread-Index: Acz1nn/oOjvX/dHJTEWt2zOLf6QpoA== Message-ID: <233E5A64-2E97-4F22-9D92-6C072952EE20@ericsson.com> References: <4F471A4C.1020107@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4F471A4C.1020107@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OSPF] status of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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, 27 Feb 2012 22:24:04 -0000 Hi Shishio, If I remember correctly, there was discussion as to whether to just use the= R-bit rather than the high link metric for OSPFv3. Given the goals of the = draft, I'd be in favor of this change.=20 Thanks, Acee On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: > Hi > After this draft be WG documents,it expired. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis/ >=20 > Was there any objection? or just maintenance issue? >=20 > Regards, > -Shishio > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > OSPF@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf From shtsuchi@cisco.com Mon Feb 27 23:15:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB8C21F849B for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:15:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_92=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WwI8P6fID1cl for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:15:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B1A721F86C9 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:15:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shtsuchi@cisco.com; l=1045; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330413337; x=1331622937; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NvL/WWTxmlkZf8s8U2We0jmKow7okr6lXNKLo15fKc8=; b=Bflo8zW/hWyVR+5HdF0BkkdDNvZAD8+gsHTKtOqfAdlDqlyIVeo3Mwd8 0pLUZNP08q3ClTOwZmjWZ3eCmXyxG9AmT49PphxfBiCOJWu1UiT8/Mz13 yju0z8W+HfEdvBM7RSao4tRzjjEx6E78TZCW/WMCbmAi+GRhvie32B/fE Q=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,494,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="32991014" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2012 07:15:37 +0000 Received: from [10.70.230.175] (tky-vpn-client-230-175.cisco.com [10.70.230.175]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1S7FYV1004421; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:15:35 GMT Message-ID: <4F4C7F16.3040004@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:15:34 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: acee.lindem@ericsson.com References: <4F471A4C.1020107@cisco.com> <233E5A64-2E97-4F22-9D92-6C072952EE20@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <233E5A64-2E97-4F22-9D92-6C072952EE20@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ospf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [OSPF] status of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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 Feb 2012 07:15:44 -0000 Acee Thank you for information. But a lot of vendors already supported the high link metric to announce as stub. Therefore I think the draft should describe both of high link metric and R-bit. What do you think if the author add only one or two sentence which mentioned exist of R-bit to current internet draft? Regards, -Shishio (2012/02/28 7:23), Acee Lindem wrote: > Hi Shishio, > If I remember correctly, there was discussion as to whether to just use the R-bit rather than the high link metric for OSPFv3. Given the goals of the draft, I'd be in favor of this change. > Thanks, > Acee > On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: > > > Hi > > After this draft be WG documents,it expired. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis/ > > > > Was there any objection? or just maintenance issue? > > > > Regards, > > -Shishio > > _______________________________________________ > > OSPF mailing list > > OSPF@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >