Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Shraddha Hegde <> Fri, 21 April 2017 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E367126D73 for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aXeeIG1Xd7sN for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C0BB129451 for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=u2ZiEJ85551Ez2xbbF72FcoNtrp20EJ4jW+ZewWDPyU=; b=Z5LB2oAQmN1njCskt2KoYGKQnTw3U9gtqrd8a42c6trYSwAjx86aw7S7Q8/mVEy7SyFMBgMxj4XgCOLR3IsmNTR7iveXarr2nTm98OrSlrp1PSeN0WwfJ7WTM7gF7fsfBWMiZr0ZzguEjq+ASjHenkarEfPJet5OAmc3jF5a/ms=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1061.6; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:37:03 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1061.007; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:37:03 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Acee Lindem <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjfBr/zBnN6RWkkuWtTeurnw/t6GZplOAgDNYtkCAAAHqgIAAnLCAgABmipCAAJZbAIABXjiw
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:37:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR05MB2707; 7:b0dr5I/4PMVeFnHWePBSGoB9C/xUk/+qq9Rr7KOEyVRVPnG/EmMcMaY1slRN8rj4Ry30DZ4Hm3R9oUUluiGJfCilmsIXb7IHQ4IjmIZBgdb/lF1/Ara+x/c7fE6eLCTD44dR952MjhziIoB1hJynaOqgCYxyjOP5ZMnWHJ3b92sTqYDal73omJRBsEUHFu393iErg1bm7gz5aJnDKhwkGmXzNCmqKgaCWL4gLRkwzmkKdudZ1h9DVnlSs8Y5R6ab925FtfAwxXhBn42JNZDszYtYKSPeucx3kH5bTPfDcKPBuxo9oYLMwFvgIHocHixpzGAEKO/puVttj6ER2NK2/A==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b7360bba-9631-41a8-7bbb-08d488a25950
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123558050)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406103)(20161123560025)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707;
x-forefront-prvs: 02843AA9E0
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39450400003)(39400400002)(39410400002)(39840400002)(39850400002)(39860400002)(13464003)(377454003)(377424004)(24454002)(9686003)(55016002)(6306002)(33656002)(229853002)(53936002)(6506006)(77096006)(6436002)(66066001)(99286003)(25786009)(53546009)(39060400002)(93886004)(38730400002)(4326008)(2950100002)(6246003)(2900100001)(76176999)(54356999)(3280700002)(2906002)(50986999)(3660700001)(189998001)(7696004)(122556002)(3846002)(102836003)(6116002)(7736002)(230783001)(8676002)(81166006)(8936002)(74316002)(305945005)(5660300001)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Apr 2017 10:37:02.9898 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2707
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 21 Apr 2017 10:37:10 -0000


> I don’t see any need to reference RFC 4203 since the Sub-TLV is sufficiently defined here. This is completely orthogonal to the definition in this draft.

I do not agree with this point. The sub-TLV, local/remote interface id requires the  remote interface-id to be filled and the draft refers to an existing standard on getting this remote interface id. This is the standard mechanism we follow in every draft.


-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:07 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <>; Acee Lindem <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Hi Shraddha, 

On 4/20/17, 12:46 AM, "Shraddha Hegde" <> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>The draft does not mandate use of RFC 4203. There are no MUST 
>statements associated with the recommendation.

I don’t see any need to reference RFC 4203 since the Sub-TLV is sufficiently defined here. This is completely orthogonal to the definition in this draft. 
>RFC 4203 is a standard and has been around for a while. I do not 
>understand why there is concern being raised over Referencing an RFC 
>which has been a standard and deployed in the field for many years.
> is 
>still an independent draft and it does not make sense to refer this 
>draft in draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-06 which is ready for WG last call.

I wasn’t suggesting to reference either document.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) []
>Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:02 AM
>To: Acee Lindem <>; Shraddha Hegde 
>Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
>Hi Shraddha,
>The only non-editorial comment that I have is that the draft references 
>RFC 4203 as the way to learn the remote interface ID on an unnumbered 
>As you know, this is a very controversial topic with some of us wanting 
>this to be in the hello packets consistent with OSPFv3 and IS-IS as 
>opposed to using a link-scoped TE Opaque LSA as suggested in the OSPF 
>GMPLS Extensions RFC ( I 
>would suggest removing the reference.
>On 4/19/17, 9:11 AM, "Acee Lindem" <> wrote:
>>Hi Shraddha,
>>I think this version addresses all my comments. I will do a detailed 
>>review this week and, most likely, start the WG last call. I encourage 
>>other WG members to do the same.
>>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Shraddha Hegde <>
>>> Hi Acee,
>>> New version draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-06 is posted where the
>>>remote-ipv4 addr is moved to a new sub-TLV.
>>> Pls review.
>>> The authors of the draft believe that draft has undergone multiple 
>>>revisions/reviews and is ready for WG last call.
>>> Rgds
>>> Shraddha
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:28 AM
>>> Cc:
>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
>>> Hi Shraddha, et al,
>>> With respect to section 4.1, I agree that matching link endpoints in
>>> OSPFv2 requires more information. However, this is a general problem 
>>>and the remote address should be a separate OSPFv2 Link Attribute LSA 
>>>TLV rather than overloading the link overload TLV ;^)
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>> On 2/23/17, 11:18 AM, "OSPF on behalf of"
>>> < on behalf of> wrote:
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>>>> This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP of 
>>>>the IETF.
>>>>       Title           : OSPF Link Overload
>>>>       Authors         : Shraddha Hegde
>>>>                         Pushpasis Sarkar
>>>>                         Hannes Gredler
>>>>                         Mohan Nanduri
>>>>                         Luay Jalil
>>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
>>>> 	Pages           : 13
>>>> 	Date            : 2017-02-23
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>  When a link is being prepared to be taken out of service, the  
>>>>traffic  needs to be diverted from both ends of the link.
>>>> Increasing the  metric to the highest metric on one side of the 
>>>>link  is not  sufficient to divert the traffic flowing in the other 
>>>>  It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to 
>>>> be  able to advertise a link being in an overload state to indicate 
>>>> impending maintenance activity on the link.  This information can 
>>>> be used by the network devices to re-route the traffic effectively.
>>>>  This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate
>>>> link-  overload information in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list