Re: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Fri, 09 October 2015 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F3A1B36E4 for <>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 04:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkJU2FixWL20 for <>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 04:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 574B41B36E2 for <>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 04:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=7830; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444389830; x=1445599430; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=9RQjVRc9iyDNk2Y7JoTscFs9IceBnzdP8CFnw+a6f4c=; b=b9LNKtWiXaYD4pY1PS7r0RyKZWuHYlNUixETuWlcIezgYtDIPKpTZChB VwX3Tk/aXnNLbTjgoXQbYZjXOmRKErU5Lsfx7vCOJAy1TpmcGUKi5Aqvm XL5EFG0mh9iQKIWk3C/SBoE+51nBpaWPSIQQZ9skJAcp6c3bIcj0S8pDT g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,657,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="35954210"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2015 11:23:49 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t99BNnWL001239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:23:49 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:23:46 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:23:46 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:23:48 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Shraddha Hegde <>, Pushpasis Sarkar <>
Thread-Topic: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:23:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Hannes Gredler <>, OSPF WG List <>, Mohan Nanduri <>, "Jalil, Luay" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 09 Oct 2015 11:23:52 -0000

Hi Shraddha, 

On 10/8/15, 11:55 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <> wrote:

>The Link overload sub TLV would go in extended link TLV since the use
>case is applicable to TE as well as non- TE deployments.
>The metric change on the reverse side applies to TE TLV as well as
> IGP metric set to 0xffff and TE metric set to oxfffffffe.
>This wasn't very clear in the -01 version of the draft. Will submit the
>-02 version very soon.

Please resubmit as a WG document (draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-00.txt) -
there has been a lot of interest in this function and the details.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) []
>Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 2:37 AM
>To: Shraddha Hegde <>et>; Pushpasis Sarkar
>Cc: OSPF WG List <>rg>; Hannes Gredler <>at>;
>Mohan Nanduri <>om>; Jalil, Luay
>Subject: Re: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
>Hi Shraddha,
>If this is truly TE, why would you use the OSPF prefix/link attribute
>instead of the actual TE metric specified in RFC 3630?
>On 9/29/15, 1:05 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <> wrote:
>>I am not sure if I am able to convey what I mean by the "controller use
>>case" in the previous mail thread. Here is another attempt to explain the
>>use case.
>>With metric change there is no guarantee that LSP will move to a
>>different path. If the current path satisfies all constraints of the LSP
>>and there is no better path
>>Satisfying the constraints then the LSP would remain up and very much on
>>the link that is going to be replaced. I mentioned in another mail
>>thread, the high metric is
>>Usable metric and does not mean "link down".
>>Link maintenance is a special scenario. The LSP MUST move out of the
>>link. Controller can take special actions if it knows the link is in
>>overload state
>>For Ex: Relax certain constraints of the LSP for the duration of
>>maintenance and move the LSP on a different path.
>>All these activities should happen in a non- disruptive fashion for the
>>service and that’s the reason the link metric cannot be changed to
>>max-metric (0xffffffff)
>>If the "link overload" information remains at the link level, controller
>>needs to take action based on metric alone.
>>It might work for most cases assuming there are better alternate paths
>>satisfying same constraints but we cannot guarantee
>>LSPs will move from the link in all cases. If we consider a case when
>>multiple links in the network go for maintenance/replacement
>>then there is higher probability that alternate paths satisfying the
>>constraints can't be found and controller needs to perform special
>>actions to
>>move the LSPs around.
>>IMHO, "link overload" is a characteristic of the link just like color,
>>bandwidth etc and it makes sense to flood it area wide just like other
>>attributes of the link.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Pushpasis Sarkar
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 8:27 PM
>>To: Acee Lindem (acee) <>
>>Cc: Shraddha Hegde <>et>; OSPF WG List <>rg>;
>>Hannes Gredler <>at>; Mohan Nanduri
>><>>; Jalil, Luay <>
>>Subject: Re: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
>>Hi Acee,
>>On 9/29/15, 8:15 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <> wrote:
>>>I apologize if I offended you. I just wanted to avoid the circular
>>>discussions and repetition of information having no bearing on the
>>>issues raised.  
>>[Pushpasis] No no. You have not offended me in any ways. So we are good
>>then. I was worried that I might have offended you instead. :)
>>>> [Pushpasis] Like mentioned already, and again in my opinion, this will
>>>>help the controller deal with scenarios where it needs to distinguish
>>>>between situations in which a link has been administratively put into
>>>>‘out-of-order’ from situations where the link has degraded to a
>>>>‘malfunctioning’ state and needs attention. Unfortunately I cannot come
>>>>up with a use-cases how this distinction can be used (other than
>>>>diverting service traffics away from the links). Perhaps some of the
>>>>operators may throw more light.
>>>I’d like to hear from the operators (especially the authors Luay and
>>[Pushpasis] Me too :)
>>>> Hoping I have not failed to communicate once more. If you still feel
>>>>so, please let me know. And I will refrain myself from answering on
>>>>this thread further.
>>>I think we are communicating now - the main question is what does this
>>>link-maintenance condition needs to be flooded throughout the OSPF
>>>routing domain when it seems that link-local signaling would offer a
>>>much more straight-forward solution. The response so far has been, “For
>>>the controller use-case” without any explanation of why increasing the
>>>forward and reverse metrics isn’t enough (especially since you are doing
>>>this anyway for backward compatibility). Les Ginsberg raised the same
>>[Pushpasis] I will not further exaggerate my already-expressed reasoning
>>as I do not have a definite use case in hand. Hoping some operators in
>>the working group may have more solid use-cases for this.
>>Thanks and Regards,