IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net> Wed, 30 September 2015 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <psarkar@juniper.net>
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 20B341A8712 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 xEVsuRKfQ5Ec for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0721.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:721]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 433921A8728 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 06:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CY1PR05MB1980.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.162.216.26) by BN3PR0501MB1378.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.117.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.280.20; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:50:48 +0000
Received: from CY1PR05MB1980.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.216.26]) by CY1PR05MB1980.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.216.26]) with mapi id 15.01.0280.017; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:50:47 +0000
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
Thread-Index: AQHQ+rHmcRhLA+ujBk6ruiEe/oRn0A==
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:50:46 +0000
Message-ID: <BF21FB7A-0F91-49E4-941A-379FB2BF1580@juniper.net>
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> <C7935FD1-4FD1-44D9-B243-8C825C2E277D@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7935FD1-4FD1-44D9-B243-8C825C2E277D@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.150911
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=psarkar@juniper.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.10]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR0501MB1378; 5:hZgBWdkNAvmVp0VaFzwteTcWuP/rXByhPLpT0oEcuZmYhpJe6A/TnYVJ1niqzzGVJUrpLQjj60T/3tp0c48S7pPg5w5QOcZEudCqzOZS8h43JmbqIGSqzjOjInamxeIrg8eyLsE9VuOlL6QfoKlOfQ==; 24:/6eYhnitNCPixrd3mP+R0wz1/ZGsL03lLdcGjmGVNhQ6ShsW4ntG2V1yMz8UI3pwKT46r67xGl9mQrEwWZ3drM+CYHMkqn1LroKTEOgmE18=; 20:NwcxItAYP9KV02vaVv5hpI5ePaSEshKjG2cvQ056bD6kk9WDCCWckGbGk9WZX6gQcYOpBuT1Gx+dgYWI6TQIgA==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1378;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR0501MB137837D70ACDD871CCD25A11BC4D0@BN3PR0501MB1378.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(520078)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001); SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1378; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1378;
x-forefront-prvs: 071518EF63
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(479174004)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(164054003)(106116001)(10400500002)(102836002)(68736005)(92566002)(5001860100001)(5001830100001)(97736004)(36756003)(62966003)(82746002)(5002640100001)(66066001)(4001540100001)(77156002)(2900100001)(4001350100001)(2950100001)(81156007)(77096005)(105586002)(40100003)(76176999)(64706001)(50986999)(54356999)(5001960100002)(106356001)(99286002)(33656002)(19580405001)(83506001)(230783001)(19580395003)(5008740100001)(189998001)(93886004)(122556002)(5007970100001)(46102003)(86362001)(83716003)(5004730100002)(87936001)(110136002)(101416001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0501MB1378; H:CY1PR05MB1980.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)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3506B151ACAEA242A5C289ABC36F8B5A@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Sep 2015 13:50:47.0032 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0501MB1378
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Onaq6g_2_sbP_2FtGwBo2LwJfcU>
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 13:51:15 -0000

Hi Acee,



On 9/30/15, 6:32 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>> 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. 
[Pushpasis] I would prefer to not do anything more here but just set the overload flag. Converting a full two-way adjacency to a stub link looks to me a little more complex for this case. I would not rule out the alternative provided by you. But to me a separate flag always looks cleaner.  

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email