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

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Fri, 21 April 2017 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@juniper.net>
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 4E367126D73 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aXeeIG1Xd7sN for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0114.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C0BB129451 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=u2ZiEJ85551Ez2xbbF72FcoNtrp20EJ4jW+ZewWDPyU=; b=Z5LB2oAQmN1njCskt2KoYGKQnTw3U9gtqrd8a42c6trYSwAjx86aw7S7Q8/mVEy7SyFMBgMxj4XgCOLR3IsmNTR7iveXarr2nTm98OrSlrp1PSeN0WwfJ7WTM7gF7fsfBWMiZr0ZzguEjq+ASjHenkarEfPJet5OAmc3jF5a/ms=
Received: from BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.2.135) by BN3PR05MB2707.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.2.136) 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 BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.2.135]) by BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.2.135]) with mapi id 15.01.1061.007; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:37:03 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
CC: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
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: <BN3PR05MB270643FE79C9D6DA9F931C0AD51A0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <148786668469.20333.199396876398174521.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D4F1C502.A346C%acee@cisco.com> <BN3PR05MB27066BF8587D26282B08B579D5180@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <03D9AC38-2C54-411B-B108-6B2D07CA5701@gmail.com> <D51D5BD0.A9768%acee@cisco.com> <BN3PR05MB27066250A45FF243E851F5F3D51B0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D51E3079.A986B%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D51E3079.A986B%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.10]
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: <BN3PR05MB27076286727621D8CB4BC3DCD51A0@BN3PR05MB2707.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
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; H:BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; 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-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/0VpTMBblYEF78TWld4lkkOkATME>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:37:10 -0000

Acee,


> 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.

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:07 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>; Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Hi Shraddha, 

On 4/20/17, 12:46 AM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shraddha@juniper.net> 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.
>
>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-00.txt 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.

Thanks,
Acee


>
>Rgds
>Shraddha
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:02 AM
>To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>; Shraddha Hegde 
><shraddha@juniper.net>
>Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>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 
>link 
>(https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-00.txt). 
>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 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4203.txt). I 
>would suggest removing the reference.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>
>
>On 4/19/17, 9:11 AM, "Acee Lindem" <acee.lindem@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Acee
>>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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 [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>>(acee)
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:28 AM
>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>>> 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 internet-drafts@ietf.org"
>>> <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>>>>directories.
>>>> 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 
>>>>direction.
>>>> 
>>>>  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:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/
>>>> 
>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05
>>>> 
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
>>>> tools.ietf.org.
>>>> 
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>