Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Thu, 27 July 2017 10:03 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 8364C131FC6 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 03:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.801 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_H2=-2.8, 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 Zm4u8ks-HRLQ for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 03:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03on0110.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5092C131947 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 03:03:31 -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=zORzmKD0VWDob4YPEXqUN+AhxBjqRUt7kwjID7aegqU=; b=h3IiYd/yGwpxSoVDGYgA7mnqPSyA9im+xZUHgMKuYmxtIT2EEivftb7GAm9GdL0sY/Fmdk9xlTohuLAt/iMo4KlEatUyZlRtvZU4KOOAkCeAwRZatYM/MpM9Idtl5ErxOf9PvRoelWa6plvWFrTScRkLXumF/PxB1OaQtIKBMQU=
Received: from BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.2.135) by BN3PR05MB2692.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.2.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.1.1304.10; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:03:29 +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 15.01.1304.016; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:03:29 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
CC: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS872MmunnbxdiUkySE3Vqotv+OqJBlF3ggASaFICAAD2BgIAAH/6AgAX7z+CAFyk9gIAD5K/Q
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:03:29 +0000
Message-ID: <BN3PR05MB270668D80D19ADFA782C9A14D5BE0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <149905985522.4910.13981695380634800888@ietfa.amsl.com> <BN3PR05MB27060840BF4245B58A10B613D5D60@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <f8545063f7114e76a57a7945623d404b@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com> <595DE709.6020005@cisco.com> <D58378DB.B72EA%acee@cisco.com> <BN3PR05MB27060BEC512EFDCEF3F332CED5A90@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D59BEA7B.BA04A%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D59BEA7B.BA04A%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=shraddha@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR05MB2692; 7: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
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 60984fd7-5aae-4e84-d333-08d4d4d6bb4f
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(2017030254106)(48565401081)(300000503095)(300135400095)(2017052603031)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2692;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3PR05MB2692:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(131327999870524)(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR05MB2692FF3A75387AE745366657D5BE0@BN3PR05MB2692.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(100000703101)(100105400095)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123558100)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2692; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2692;
x-forefront-prvs: 03818C953D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39410400002)(39400400002)(39850400002)(39450400003)(199003)(13464003)(377454003)(24454002)(377424004)(189002)(52054003)(3660700001)(38730400002)(2906002)(8936002)(6246003)(966005)(7696004)(106356001)(6306002)(9686003)(2900100001)(77096006)(105586002)(3280700002)(25786009)(68736007)(8676002)(66066001)(2950100002)(81166006)(4326008)(478600001)(81156014)(86362001)(230783001)(53546010)(6116002)(7736002)(93886004)(305945005)(3846002)(102836003)(6436002)(74316002)(53936002)(6506006)(14454004)(101416001)(33656002)(189998001)(5660300001)(99286003)(55016002)(54356999)(76176999)(50986999)(97736004)(229853002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2692; H:BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
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: 27 Jul 2017 10:03:29.6274 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2692
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/DJBl_u_WTIWXdlcLREvyJ7nOJnI>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.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, 27 Jul 2017 10:03:34 -0000

Acee/OSPF WG,

I just realized my post on updated draft for -08 version posted on 17-07 was stuck at confirmation stage.

I think it's useful to have normative language to ensure interoperability. I have updated the "elements of procedure"
Section accordingly. Please review the -08 version.

Thanks
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:59 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>et>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>om>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt

Hi Shraddha, 

Great - I think we are all in sync.

What are your thoughts on using “MUST” for the setting the link metrics in sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5? I checked RFC 6987 (and RFC 3137) and they don't use normative language since setting the link-metrics to 0xffff is the very definition of OSPF stub router behavior.

Also, one more reference to RFC 4203.

*** 438,445 ****
     field in the Extended Link TLV carries the Local interface-id instead
     of the IP address.  The Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV MUST be
     originated when there are multiple parallel unnumbered interfaces
!    between two nodes.  Procedures to obtain interface-id of the remote
!    side are defined in [RFC4203].
  
  
  
--- 438,445 ----
     field in the Extended Link TLV carries the Local interface-id instead
     of the IP address.  The Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV MUST be
     originated when there are multiple parallel unnumbered interfaces
!    between two nodes.  One of the mechanisms to obtain remote
!    interface-id is described in [RFC4203].
  


Thanks,
Acee 


On 7/10/17, 12:52 AM, "Shraddha Hegde" <shraddha@juniper.net> wrote:

>All,
>
>Link-local flooding was added as an optimization for use-cases that do 
>not need area level flooding on request from Acee.
>I agree flooding area level in all cases is a reasonable way forward as 
>the overhead isn't much.
>
>If anyone has objections to removing Link-local scope advertisement, do 
>let me know.
>
>Rgds
>Shraddha
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 2:55 PM
>To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>om>; Ketan Talaulikar 
>(ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
>Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt
>
>Hi Peter, Shradha,
>
>On 7/6/17, 3:30 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)"
><ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>On 06/07/17 05:50 , Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
>>> Hi Shraddha,
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking care of some of the comments shared previously.
>>>Please find below some more that were probably missed or not taken 
>>>care of.
>>>
>>> 1) I see that the use of link-local scope RI LSA has still been 
>>>retained in this version and not sure why. RI LSA is for node 
>>>attributes and it's use for signalling of link is not right IMO. Why 
>>>not use the link-local scope Extended Link LSA instead?
>>
>>an alternative would be to always flood area scope Extended Link LSA.
>>It should not harm anything and could be used by other routers in area 
>>as a "heads-up" that remote link is becoming overloaded.
>
>I think this would be a good way forward as the OSPF Extended Attribute 
>LSA will most likely be advertised for SR in OSPF Service Provider 
>domains anyway. So, just advertising the area-scope for all use cases 
>would seem to be the simplify this approach and get us past this 
>discussion. In fact, the -00 version of the draft had area-scope alone 
>and I, regretfully, had suggested the OSPF RI as possible way to get 
>support either scope.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Sec 5.1, why is advertising of MAX-METRIC for the link to be 
>>>overloaded a SHOULD and not a MUST? Isn't this mandatory to ensure 
>>>backward compatibility? What if the router on which overload is 
>>>signalled does not do MAX-METRIC but the implementation on the remote 
>>>side end up doing MAX-METRIC. Would it not result in asymmetric 
>>>metric in a un-intended manner? Please consider changing all SHOULD 
>>>here to MUST to ensure backward compatibility.
>>>
>>> 3) Sec 5.4, can you please make similar change in language related 
>>>to the RFC4203 reference as you've done in other parts in this version?
>>>
>>> Also I don't agree with the rationale you've given for not using LLS 
>>>for the link-local signalling. Even if the hello processing were 
>>>delegated to the LC, there are already a lot of protocol events which 
>>>can happen via hello packets (which includes LLS) that require 
>>>signalling update to the control plane OSPF main process. An 
>>>implementation aspect such as this should hardly be a good reason to 
>>>not use LLS for link-local signalling such as overload.
>>
>>+1 on the above.
>>
>>thanks,
>>Peter
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ketan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha 
>>> Hegde
>>> Sent: 03 July 2017 11:11
>>> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org; i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt
>>>
>>> OSPF WG,
>>>
>>> New version of the ospf-link-overload draft is posted.
>>> Editorial comments received so far have been addressed in this version.
>>>
>>> There was one comments to move the link-overload sub-TLV to LLS in 
>>>hello messages.
>>> Many implementations delegate the Hello processing to 
>>>linecards/different deamons  Once adjacency is established. Hello 
>>>messages are not sent to control plane  post adjacency establishment.
>>>The link-overload information typically needs to be processed  after 
>>>adjacency establishment, it introduces unnecessary complexity in 
>>>hello processing.
>>> We had a discussion among authors on this and feel advertising 
>>>link-overload sub-TLV  in the LSAs is the most appropriate mechanism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>> Shraddha
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
>>>internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 11:01 AM
>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> 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-07.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 14
>>> 	Date            : 2017-07-02
>>>
>>> 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 are also htmlized versions available at:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-
>>> 0
>>> 7
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>