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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2415F129420 for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCB4bGTBAek4 for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADF32127B52 for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,224,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="232974655"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Apr 2017 05:15:47 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:15:46 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:15:46 -0500
From: "Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <>
To: Shraddha Hegde <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Acee Lindem <>
CC: "" <>
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: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: 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).


-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: 20 April 2017 10:17
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <>; Acee Lindem <>
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. 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.


-----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 link ( 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 
>>>       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:
>>> 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

OSPF mailing list