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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shraddha, 

On 4/20/17, 12:46 AM, "Shraddha Hegde" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>
>The draft does not mandate use of RFC 4203. There are no MUST statements
>associated with the recommendation.

I don’t see any need to reference RFC 4203 since the Sub-TLV is
sufficiently defined here. This is completely orthogonal to the definition
in this draft. 
>
>
>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.

I wasn’t suggesting to reference either document.

Thanks,
Acee


>
>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
>>
>