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

["Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>]

Shraddha,

There are also other applications that your draft lists which are TE independent and hence the case for not referring to a specific way for signalling interface-ids which is TE specific.

I don't understand why you would be so reluctant to remove a reference which is not even central to the topic of the draft?

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 20 April 2017 12:11
To: Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Ketan,

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


Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:46 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
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).

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: 20 April 2017 10:17
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
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.

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-00.txt 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.

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:02 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>; Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
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 (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-00.txt). 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 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4203.txt). I would suggest removing the reference.

Thanks,
Acee 


On 4/19/17, 9:11 AM, "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]> 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.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> 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 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>(acee)
>> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:28 AM
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> 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 [e-mail]"
>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>>>directories.
>>> This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP of the 
>>>IETF.
>>> 
>>>       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:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/
>>> 
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05
>>> 
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
>>> tools.ietf.org.
>>> 
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf