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

"Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ketant@cisco.com>
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 2415F129420 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 dCB4bGTBAek4 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADF32127B52 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6473; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492665348; x=1493874948; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=m1IEkyNdt4bc6cJVkDzyrNwzSLSKxMO3lfuGsYd+9o0=; b=CpvxzmmZ0kjHg35zWMEHmkxvtNX/H4yapXzeaPARlKGTmG6QqFJAx6ZN +UAJToDW4MIhGGUE7yQ1Y8AEjCHUzUMPpbRAS/+cMyF62RIon+Y0SCLNn R/VntUFrCRQbtLB3a09oeOXCX8my/tfQVpW4tkr52MzeQo0rLr9aDsoGe A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DPAADDQvhY/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgykrYYELB411kWOIHo1Fgg8hC4V4AoQIPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?VAQEBAQMBATg0CwwEAgEIEQQBAQEeCQchBgsUCQgCBAENBQiJfAMVDq0UhzYNg?= =?us-ascii?q?18BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhlOBXAGDGYJRR4FlhT8FnHY7AYcUhyW?= =?us-ascii?q?EP4IJVYReihyLDokDAR84gQVjFRoqhmV1AYddgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,224,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="232974655"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Apr 2017 05:15:47 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (xch-aln-014.cisco.com [173.36.7.24]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3K5FlWb002198 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:15:47 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:15:46 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com ([173.36.7.18]) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com ([173.36.7.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:15:46 -0500
From: "Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>, "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: AQHSjfByO8kpQeQEREmAKR+SQR3rbKGZ+iWAgDNZ+4CAAAClgIAAnK+AgABov4D//7L4MA==
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:15:46 +0000
Message-ID: <8bbcc21d28a043629b237429abeee2a6@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.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>
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR05MB27066250A45FF243E851F5F3D51B0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.65.95.171]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/218exk_rQKiXxohRKLQplQvHEbA>
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:15:51 -0000

Hi Shraddha,

The RFC 4203 describes the usage and application of TE LSAs for GMPLS/TE use cases. The OSPF link overload RFC is independent of TE and hence it is a concern that an implementation needs to use TE LSAs with link-local scope just for signalling the interface-ids for unnumbered links.

Not asking for reference to draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id. Just asking to remove reference to RFC 4203 since the mechanism for signalling interface-ids is orthogonal to the subject of the draft which is generic to OSPF and independent of any TE/GMPLS use-case(s).

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: 20 April 2017 10:17
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Hi Acee,

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


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.

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
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf