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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0E01A7023 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4cDbrubR1qoD for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEC8C1A701E for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1582; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1443618173; x=1444827773; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=lJ0kEHNU2QthNNugxPgKInxrukoyVEf+/BUaw6+gOCc=; b=E+ITnoz8iT9Zcdcnk5x1BJhN4VYFsfV3ju7bUUmaY4bj6lSBrRa+s4e3 4DSx6dp470e1aY50uSL6bR9ngxOXh0oIker0yDBlvH3IcYqyqdauRcU7l 688m9SerzE8Lihgw7l3CkRN1Y88EWKaq+Qk8xydL3GTCUir7OtrS/Zc38 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ALAgBz3AtW/5tdJa1egySBPQaDJbYjhCEBDYd0AhyBGjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCQBAQEDASMRRQULAgEIDgoCAiYCAgIwFRACBA4FiCYItnWUaQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReBIodggm6FDQeCaS+BFAEElXgBjRKbUB8BAUKEAnGIGYEFAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,612,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="193022487"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2015 13:02:52 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8UD2qBj018377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:02:52 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:02:51 -0500
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (173.37.183.89) by xch-aln-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:02:51 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.127]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:02:51 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
Thread-Index: AQHQ9/MdJMB0YsR7d0CkMD6XMtCYyZ5RXZAwgACngYCAAOZAsIAAjtgA///5vgCAAANVAIAAHdGAgAAGI4CAAAMzAIAAHeHwgACKfQCAAHadAIAAE9mAgAAL2ACAABGcAIAATKkAgAApMwA=
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:02:51 +0000
Message-ID: <C7935FD1-4FD1-44D9-B243-8C825C2E277D@cisco.com>
References: <D22B605B.32E55%acee@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB1381B0343F37E534E2CFAB8DD54F0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D22EB65C.32FF9%acee@cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB138107954EB733C69D388CC7D54E0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D22FF12A.3323C%acee@cisco.com> <F41DF673-765D-44B2-9499-E47F3D2EABB7@juniper.net> <D22FFBCB.3325F%acee@cisco.com> <0E0FB058-0DC6-49BD-95BC-6E64584B1DAD@juniper.net> <C4D23725-19FA-4B30-9496-486836E001DA@cisco.com> <03C3AD8C-BA1F-4951-BE7E-367C95535484@juniper.net> <BY1PR0501MB1381D96FA2F88CF374D7E3C8D54E0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <ba7d718a973d4f17aa0d3392ad9d04c0@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <BY1PR0501MB13810C3D18F95BCADEE0D12BD54D0@BY1PR0501MB1381.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <39fe6e2522b0468c8eccff66ec701555@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <6A3F4D8E-4D4F-4E9B-8026-1445B73F9BDE@juniper.net> <D2312AFD.334FB%acee@cisco.com> <84A287C4-B72D-4B58-8965-E1BBE10FA0FD@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <84A287C4-B72D-4B58-8965-E1BBE10FA0FD@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.30]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F3D1DB79EBCB6744BBF34218F2424C1D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/NG-55sIojyuqROq6tjelvTh23Ts>
Cc: "Jalil, Luay" <luay.jalil@verizon.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, Mohan Nanduri <mnanduri@microsoft.com>, Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:02:58 -0000

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Acee,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/30/15, 3:30 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 9/30/15, 12:57 AM, "Pushpasis Sarkar" <psarkar@juniper.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Les,
>>> 
>>> On 9/30/15, 9:45 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> [Les:] Which seems to me to be exactly the definition of link of last
>>>> resort i.e. in the absence of any other alternative use the link
>>>> undergoing maintenance.
>>>> ??
>>> [Pushpasis] What if the operator does not want any traffic on those links
>>> at all? Should not there be a way to ensure that as well?
>> 
>> We have this mechanism - you don’t advertise the link…
> 
> [Pushpasis] I will then ask, what if he/she still want that link to be advertised (because we want to it to be visible) but yet not use it if it still fails some policy? 

Then don’t advertise the adjacency on the link…. You can always advertise it as a stub link. 

Thanks,
Acee 


> 
> Thanks 
> -Pushpasis
> 
>> 
>> Acee 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>