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

Shraddha Hegde <> Thu, 20 April 2017 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58771200C1 for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.022
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 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_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 CDIH_qcmylhc for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAAD612EB14 for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Hn+N1MWatAitTCKAHs8DjH9R/KLhyrQzw116c1yCbVc=; b=AyPy9xsQJWlbXkXU7PCSwI6TzPJlSkNG1Dg+lgZ2aa+hAz6o6gFQnv1giJ5rSwJKBwtFw6dhKhvrooRDHaI2+BiLv4LXmXQONb+NOb2ZrIBnWDPY+9it4G/8Ii8g8c8RnWouNUxGVrUmAUW+taT9F63vMvWI+EnEpP3f7/r/lvw=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1047.6; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:41:17 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1047.008; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:41:17 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Acee Lindem <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjfBr/zBnN6RWkkuWtTeurnw/t6GZplOAgDNYtkCAAAHqgIAAnLCAgABmipCAAApGAIAAF0vg
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:41:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR05MB2706; 7:yHyR6wXEAhQJXQiNMxqc01f1buoH6+dNxy3zTBIDDyaK4DaHXzYc+HA7uXJMl0s6Kb1nzaxHe8YCu30Dl/uCrEkLHHdD4dmadNZmKtYMKehA47taPESsmbpwqzqU9qUe0Fd0ZANkcnf1U2TRyor1SA7TeSx1mtLzOeyJbDCrIXQt+WkMW0ugw7UzYT0/QJrWTpVZ2mpO3jRCmABZ7Sfnt+Ec/rSp0KRnv0GfTK4yq2smeGAogpOIOchWZzh1mbcW/uYF+KTJywrG1/0zODqj+f6oPKR/5okqSttQNizbFLX1f3IVGQkeKLFfFiMozv0uCsSIN3IUqUy9n1fbyy0FsA==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a126b45c-dccc-49f1-1ccb-08d487b83fb3
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(120809045254105)(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201703011903075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;
x-forefront-prvs: 02830F0362
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39400400002)(39850400002)(39410400002)(39450400003)(24454002)(13464003)(377424004)(377454003)(66066001)(6116002)(25786009)(6246003)(3846002)(102836003)(53546009)(6436002)(55016002)(38730400002)(6506006)(4326008)(189998001)(93886004)(39060400002)(5660300001)(3660700001)(33656002)(6306002)(230783001)(99286003)(7736002)(305945005)(7696004)(86362001)(2906002)(74316002)(3280700002)(122556002)(53936002)(229853002)(77096006)(8936002)(2950100002)(81166006)(9686003)(8676002)(2900100001)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Apr 2017 06:41:17.8157 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2706
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 06:41:23 -0000


We do have traffic engineering applications that require link-overload functionality.
Pls refer section 7.2.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant) [] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:46 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde <>; Acee Lindem (acee) <>; Acee Lindem <>
Subject: RE: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

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