IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 13:21 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 BCD031A8034 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:21:02 -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 gG2dlpVp7t86 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A3B1A802D for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2362; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1443619260; x=1444828860; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=yw+xZKulHOpm8yqzNcJM7tRXQAlWgLX3oM9biu6c6zU=; b=FfecMT9Rs5sjJWPNWOHXKKrsfXXn8J69uNv7gx2CZ0jak1/n7oW1fx/C LvJUAHhaoYbl/45MLtIisRoAt2Sqhfw/ZgfRLkf7IT273LcGQbdT1Z75s fWRjE1ebI7smBhug1BYSHDgqMcbQrpWJP9sZN4pWvTTECfdlO7uQIx5lr I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AMAgBB4QtW/5tdJa1egyRUaQaDJbpEAQ2BcQqFeQIcgRo4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQkAQEBBAEBASAROgsMBAIBCBEEAQEBAgIjAwICAiULFAEICAIEAQ0FiC4NtnGUaQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEgSKKToQhQSsHAgICgmOBQwEElXgBjRKbUB8BAUKEAnGIGYEFAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,612,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="33318491"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2015 13:21:00 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (xch-aln-014.cisco.com [173.36.7.24]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8UDKxcS030657 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:20:59 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:20:59 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (173.36.12.76) by xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:20:59 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.127]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:20:58 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>, Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
Thread-Index: AQHQ9/MdJMB0YsR7d0CkMD6XMtCYyZ5RXZAwgACngYCAAOZAsIAAjtgA///5vgCAAANVAIAAHdGAgAAGI4CAAAMzAIAAHeHwgACKfQCAAHadAIAAE9mAgAAL2ACAAB1VgIAALDwA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:20:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D23159D6.3354E%acee@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> <1B502206DFA0C544B7A6046915200863513616FC@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A6046915200863513616FC@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.15]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <579F52CD8344B14D9CB7CF9616C131CE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/OWE5H8wrKb-ZBbYFQR1n59pSgyY>
Cc: Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, Mohan Nanduri <mnanduri@microsoft.com>, "Jalil, Luay" <luay.jalil@verizon.com>
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 13:21:02 -0000


On 9/30/15, 2:42 AM, "Uma Chunduri" <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com> wrote:

>Perhaps the last resort for all the nodes in the network for
>primary/backup path computations.
>But I see having this additional information of link undergoing
>maintenance @ controller can help
>operator to craft  a policy to use/not-to-use this path at all for
>certain LSPs.

Maybe you can describe this use case as I fail to see it.

Thanks,
Acee 



>
>I am fine with this addition of this information.
>
>--
>Uma C.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pushpasis Sarkar
>Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 9:58 PM
>To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde; Acee Lindem (acee)
>Cc: Hannes Gredler; OSPF WG List; Mohan Nanduri; Jalil, Luay
>Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
>
>Hi Les,
>
>
>
>
>On 9/30/15, 9:45 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>><Shraddha>As I indicated before, max-metric can work in most common
>>>scenarios but not all. There could be cases where an alternate path
>>>cannot be found Satisfying the constraints so LSP remains on the link
>>>undergoing maintenance since the link is still a last resort link.
>>
>>[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?
>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>OSPF@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email