From: "Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>,
 Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
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+AgAAH+tA=
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 04:36:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4d5e5aa337eb41a682a05cd3197f3850@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>
In-Reply-To: <D51D5BD0.A9768%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
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/8L9UiUkCd_k1yNC7Ys1k1rciBIw>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
Precedence: list

Hi Shraddha/Authors,

I would like to share the following comments and feedback on this draft.

1) I did not understand the motivation for the use of link-local scoped RI =
LSA for the link-overload signalling when we have the ability to do so via =
the TLV in the area-scoped Extended Link Attribute LSA. I think it may be a=
 good idea (an optimization) to use the TLV in an area-scoped RI LSA to ind=
icate link overload for all the router links instead of signalling individu=
ally for all its links in the Extended Link Attribute LSA - but this is not=
 what the draft proposes. So could you explain the reason for the link-loca=
l scoped RI LSA TLV usage?

2) The Link Overload TLV is defined with a remote IP address field now. Thi=
s does not seem like a good idea. We have had traditionally certain TLVs in=
 OSPF LSAs that describe links i.e. Remote Interface IP address and Link Lo=
cal/Remote Identifiers and cover both numbered and unnumbered links. The dr=
aft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse proposed to specifically re-use these T=
LVs so that links may be described correctly in the new extended link attri=
bute LSA for generic use-cases such as the Link Overload TLV here. It seems=
 rather odd that we are now introducing these fields like remote address in=
 individual TLVs and proposing *hacky* encoding of link-ids in the remote I=
P address field for unnumbered links instead of re-using existing well defi=
ned generic TLVs.

3) I am not sure why the reference to use of OSPFv3 extended LSAs for link =
level area-scoped signalling was removed from this version of the draft.

4) I also have an objection to the reference of RFC4203 for the procedures =
for obtaining the remote interface-id since that mechanism is outside the s=
cope of what this draft is trying to standardize. Specifically, I have a pr=
oblem since it gives an impression that the mechanism described in RFC4203 =
is *the* procedure for obtaining the remote interface-id since that specifi=
cation is very specific to the GMPLS/TE use-cases and it is not a generic/b=
ased OSPF protocol mechanism. We have proposed an alternate mechanism for d=
oing this in a manner consistent with OSPFv3 and ISIS in draft-ppsenak-ospf=
-lls-interface-id. We can debate the need for this mechanism in a separate =
thread, but the reference to RFC4203 does not seem necessary here to me.

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 20 April 2017 04:02
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.n=
et>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Hi Shraddha,=20

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=20


On 4/19/17, 9:11 AM, "Acee Lindem" <acee.lindem@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Shraddha,=20
>
>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=20
>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
>>wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi Acee,
>>=20
>> New version draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-06 is posted where the
>>remote-ipv4 addr is moved to a new sub-TLV.
>> Pls review.
>>=20
>> The authors of the draft believe that draft has undergone multiple
>>revisions/reviews and is ready for WG last call.
>>=20
>> Rgds
>> Shraddha
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----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
>>=20
>> Hi Shraddha, et al,
>>=20
>> 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 ;^)
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>=20
>> 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:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>>       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
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>>  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.
>>>=20
>>>  This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate link-
>>>  overload information in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/
>>>=20
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05
>>>=20
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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