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

"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <> Thu, 06 July 2017 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5121243FE for <>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 20:50:14 -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 Q2wOJAoNGgZA for <>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 20:50:11 -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 E6E8212ECF5 for <>; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 20:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4970; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1499313011; x=1500522611; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=XFMah1cpBz9vH7NP9UQNLNUh/LAB5co9rnsJIn2eO0c=; b=VK3t7Xp8NzLFZmtfNxNSpbqrkX/QByglZHRGb9Ovr2ewdfKDruBpIL+b Qiujbig/w90IYQvPiEDnmFpbh/b1PSB4QYdHSltMxls12ASQfGwSlQgiT pqS7+BgTJ8L2am2Ywjf1jwUuQFez43JEijbOacxOHnQCtCxe1Ov3i/tkT o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,315,1496102400"; d="scan'208";a="450700161"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Jul 2017 03:50:10 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v663o9FT007098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Jul 2017 03:50:09 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:50:09 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:50:09 -0500
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <>
To: Shraddha Hegde <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS872QsNqGbdbjGkmpS+ou2gCvtqJB6lOAgARC/dA=
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 03:50:09 +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-07.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, 06 Jul 2017 03:50:14 -0000

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?

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: 03 July 2017 11:11
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-07.txt


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.


-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 11:01 AM
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

   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 are also htmlized versions 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