Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

+1 on GLS, GS has well defined semantics, (L)ink describes the context 

 

Cheers,

Jeff

 

From: OSPF <[e-mail]> on behalf of Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 01:25
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

 

Hi Acee,

 

LOL.. Might as well be 'link-on-break'.. :)

 

Anyways graceful-link-shutdown seems to be the most agreed upon. 

 

Thanks and regards,

-Pushpasis

 

 

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Pushpasis, Shraddha, et al, 

 

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 12:22 PM
To: Bruno Decraene <[e-mail]>
Cc: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>, "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, OSPF WG List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11
Resent-From: <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>, Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>, Hannes Gredler <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, Luay Jalil <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>, Deborah Brungard <[e-mail]>, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date: Monday, January 8, 2018 at 12:22 PM

 

Hi Joel et al, 

 

+1 for 'graceful-link-shutdown'.

 

I think we are converging on this. I must admit that it is much better than “link-overload”. Although Les raises a good point that this behavior could be used for other use cases, subsequent discussions have indicated that these could be handled differently. 

 

 

Another possibility may be 'link-decommission'.. 

 

This implies too much permanence. If you decommission something, you are more or less retiring It which is not this use case. This is more of giving the link a rest. Maybe we could use the there term “Link on Leave” or LOL state ;^).  

 

Thanks,

Acee

 

 

Thanks and regards

-Pushpasis

 

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:09 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

 

 

From: Shraddha Hegde

How about “graceful-link-shutdown” ?

 

Looks good to me.
Also, FYI, for BGP sessions, in the GROW WG we used the term “Graceful BGP session shutdown” and named the BGP community “GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN” so this would align on the terminology.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13

 

Best regards,

--Bruno

 

 

Rgds

Shraddha

 

 

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 6:50 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>; Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

 

It is not in “maintenance" mode yet as it is still being used. However, it is better than “overload”. “pending-maintenance” is a bit long which is why I suggested “pending-shutdown” since “shutdown” is term that vendors have used for eons to described an interface that is not in service.

Thanks,

Acee 

 

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: OSPF WG List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

 

Ketan –

 

“maintenance” I could live with.

 

“GIR” seems to not be generic enough.

 

   Les

 

 

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) 
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:09 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

 

Hello,

 

May I suggest something more generic like “Maintenance Mode” or “Graceful Insertion/Removal (GIR) Mode” which could be defined so as to cover the multiple scenarios in question (e.g. pending shutdown, down for repairs, last resort due to poor link quality, etc.).

 

Thanks,

Ketan

 

From: OSPF [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 05 January 2018 08:14
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

 

Hi Les, 

 

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 9:26 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: OSPF WG List <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11

 

> >Minor issues:

> >    I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link

> >being taken

> >    out of service.  I think people will learn what we mean.  I do wish

> >we had

> >    not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion.  This is much more a

> >    graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than

> >it is an

> >    overload indication.

> 

> I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a

> better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current

> OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”.

> Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV

> and state?

> 

[Les:] I agree with Joel's comment. The use of the term "overload" is unfortunate.

But "pending-shutdown" isn’t appealing to me because - at least in most use cases - you aren't actually going to shutdown the link. What you are going to do is make a link the "link of last resort". 

This seems a better choice.

 

That is not the use case - you are going to take the link down. It is not going to be the "link of last resort”, it is the currently the “link of last resort” and will imminently be taken down. 

 

 

The suggestion from Shraddha that this term was borrowed from IS-IS isn't accurate. "overload" in IS-IS has a very different meaning - it indicates a node either has an incomplete LSDB or (a la RFC 3277 )an incomplete forwarding plane.

 

The only use of "link overload" in IS-IS occurs in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-07#section-3.6 and this was added recently to support the (very useful) TE use case which was defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-11 . When this was done the term "link-overload" was cut and pasted from the OSPF draft. I think this should also be changed in the IS-IS draft.

 

Agreed. 

 

Thanks,

Acee 

 

   Les

 

> Thanks,

> Acee

> >

> >

> >

> 

> _______________________________________________

> OSPF mailing list

> [e-mail]

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
 
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
 

 

_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf