IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload (aka, Graceful Link Shutdown) MAX-TE-METRIC

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Fri, 12 January 2018 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3958B1243FE for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:07:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 YI2vmksD0AzZ for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC01A12025C for <ospf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w0C858cC017392; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:07:26 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=nRYRki/GK9bCerXuWg032QctDwUNQrPUEd3L3TpujZA=; b=ry+4uM6GF50KF/EVUA+1uIkIIdMq/fqCCLIYZbT1f6RwjAY9rHsEK7XeDc9j6DjAsZD2 eNmRGcZxt87m8ooTcvhoj3xV71FRaadzoMAcIzBgoTZLy+SxFaGYQWE0AJCzEJPWZiRN rAmWQTGgIe6M/lCYRRTRb/le75BF5NPFMiGOeoPGZ1iYfuVqtgeHwUgL3YpmqwALc69e cwBNW/9OKUmMrXhWeaZoy65Zj8YhgsoDFmFL+PatRb7hsptFsTQ0+yAvQaCG4QFFgoCu pC9uxl7/bpornCs4UZj/A4rtHoJBcclUFb48pimNZnAUYGuQIccznVLoLHnWV4vtqfNx XQ==
Received: from nam03-dm3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03lp0023.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.23]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ferdg82xc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:07:26 -0800
Received: from BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.2.135) by BN3PR05MB2707.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.2.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.407.1; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:07:24 +0000
Received: from BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.2.135]) by BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.2.135]) with mapi id 15.20.0407.000; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:07:24 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
CC: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OSPF Link Overload (aka, Graceful Link Shutdown) MAX-TE-METRIC
Thread-Index: AQHTibmtxi8oQ47WLkuxOaaTq6cQQKNvxUQw
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:07:24 +0000
Message-ID: <BN3PR05MB270656E8380A03A67CCD9593D5170@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D67AE2BC.E9365%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D67AE2BC.E9365%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [122.172.61.133]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR05MB2707; 7:FIChnm844pNsSgLdKfLFxTID+gsw4maIm1Xr6wobpriqM1/jbEHfJ/Tn3u4EkM7obOZUHMZ3FCMENiAeRQ1YSiSKYjTyW1LFbtv6OCtMtsgxZeNXoijuyMEZeytxPgcsPFkfsT/PQWChv3LjhtHMLfa09jUkZ/SPY7RGcfMexgdRep+VMDcZDTTPmgA1FGxCs3ICt/TUbGPZCbaMoNNSOnpTwLNYiXkL1zYNDTV8NLDdh2/eIiKRVEvwiLbkoGSL
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f5cd799f-0cf5-4184-5680-08d55993836f
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020078)(4652020)(4534109)(4602075)(4627205)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(48565401081)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3PR05MB2707:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR05MB2707BA0963B243C9DE4C7D3FD5170@BN3PR05MB2707.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(138986009662008)(95692535739014)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040470)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231023)(944501141)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041268)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707;
x-forefront-prvs: 0550778858
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(346002)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(39380400002)(189003)(199004)(7696005)(77096006)(53936002)(229853002)(81166006)(7736002)(74316002)(6246003)(6436002)(33656002)(478600001)(54896002)(6306002)(8676002)(3660700001)(55016002)(66066001)(6346003)(81156014)(99286004)(68736007)(86362001)(106356001)(316002)(4743002)(6116002)(6916009)(2950100002)(8936002)(5660300001)(14454004)(3280700002)(53546011)(3846002)(76176011)(9686003)(2900100001)(790700001)(102836004)(6506007)(97736004)(2906002)(4326008)(230783001)(105586002)(25786009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707; H:BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: VeUkArM1XsWBnDBaFp9IHMCY4AHnBqJ2H1wydhUUziwvZa1MpqRRHPU/7o7a4E7Uub1zd74KsC4rOBEt0UzI5g==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN3PR05MB270656E8380A03A67CCD9593D5170BN3PR05MB2706namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f5cd799f-0cf5-4184-5680-08d55993836f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Jan 2018 08:07:24.2188 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2707
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-12_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1801120109
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/WP_zRaZBbjOgRVUZOFptqXhhZ3A>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload (aka, Graceful Link Shutdown) MAX-TE-METRIC
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:07:30 -0000

Acee,

Pls see inline..

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:51 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: OSPF Link Overload (aka, Graceful Link Shutdown) MAX-TE-METRIC

Hi Shraddha,

We noticed that RFC 5817 sets the TE Metric to 0xffffffff for graceful TE shutdown and the OSPF Link Overload draft uses MAX-TE-METRIC (0xfffffffe). Two Questions:


1.       MAX-TE-METRIC is being defined in the OSPF Link Overload draft – correct? It is not a reference from some other RFC or draft?

<Shraddha>Yes. This value is introduced in this draft.

The reason was that some implementation treat te-metric 0xffffffff as invalid value and do not setup paths through them. Using 0xffffffff-1 seemed like a safe option

2.       Why not just use 0xffffffff like RFC 5817?

<Shraddha>We can if we have the Working Group Consensus.



Thanks,
Acee

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status