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

Shraddha Hegde <> Thu, 20 April 2017 06:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CFC127ABE for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.022
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CzWGPCjSfzNZ for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F6CD1200C1 for <>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=c+VHlCeXAIfcVKrdKQodk1wmzgJMql4v/MDWqLBnp9k=; b=OJhJiKvOa+NYESmxFBnBMPf9e9HfggzGpqAxF6gtyZFWbEmb56sMRIvKAV/BkMwzGu4FvoHY52bf9bR4k53Uvw3no8hoRVe2F9P7PIJmprtd38E8xBDZp05h/SBozDw2R8I4IdFZ7FdDlZrH+FxDCdBqK47LRSAxZrEO66I4iRQ=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1047.6; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:46:06 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1047.008; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:46:06 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Acee Lindem <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjfBr/zBnN6RWkkuWtTeurnw/t6GZplOAgDNYtkCAAAHqgIAAnLCAgABl0ICAACL4UA==
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:46:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR05MB2706; 7:9Bkb0IBOkSa6HTaWyX7q0Va/WiWpYxvWCkCxvadvESjYiFXrLhECX0IPhQWpENEkt5sng3JPDO+TzcyP29oaBmy24KiX32PlslCddER13JC9yW2LuUKDlRaNHkMmMYzteUeN76mMbiQNVIaP4SlObikHC6/9/9GYl/D7KKAO7oa1cDpp/5Li4ac2kRuHG4nDGQoj7/PjbTtGFcH9TCqxItxNmg+u6HZ1f09QoO+BNoO8EbvCC31n+LAVndOQWD5d4q7gBbQ+1rZCSoODSdVyBO1YwFiWS/tuUMVux/WNjQFidcg6s8h4i0OcQ0D0Hiy8zqOOPtbVd1FkXUrCU+lHhA==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4e60007f-c6df-443e-637a-08d487b8eb8e
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201703011903075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;
x-forefront-prvs: 02830F0362
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39400400002)(39850400002)(39410400002)(39450400003)(24454002)(13464003)(377424004)(377454003)(66066001)(6116002)(25786009)(6246003)(3846002)(102836003)(53546009)(6436002)(55016002)(38730400002)(6506006)(4326008)(189998001)(93886004)(39060400002)(5660300001)(3660700001)(33656002)(6306002)(230783001)(99286003)(7736002)(305945005)(7696004)(86362001)(2906002)(74316002)(3280700002)(122556002)(53936002)(229853002)(77096006)(8936002)(2950100002)(81166006)(9686003)(8676002)(2900100001)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2706;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Apr 2017 06:46:06.0210 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2706
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 06:46:10 -0000


Pls see inline..

-----Original Message-----
From: Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant) [] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:06 AM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <>; Acee Lindem <>; Shraddha Hegde <>
Subject: RE: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Hi Shraddha/Authors,

I would like to share the following comments and feedback on this draft.

1) I did not understand the motivation for the use of link-local scoped RI LSA for the link-overload signalling when we have the ability to do so via the TLV in the area-scoped Extended Link Attribute LSA. I think it may be a good idea (an optimization) to use the TLV in an area-scoped RI LSA to indicate link overload for all the router links instead of signalling individually for all its links in the Extended Link Attribute LSA - but this is not what the draft proposes. So could you explain the reason for the link-local scoped RI LSA TLV usage?

<Shraddha>  There are many application which may not need an area wide  indication and a link level indication would be sufficient.
Pls refer section for the applications.

2) The Link Overload TLV is defined with a remote IP address field now. This does not seem like a good idea. We have had traditionally certain TLVs in OSPF LSAs that describe links i.e. Remote Interface IP address and Link Local/Remote Identifiers and cover both numbered and unnumbered links. The draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse proposed to specifically re-use these TLVs so that links may be described correctly in the new extended link attribute LSA for generic use-cases such as the Link Overload TLV here. It seems rather odd that we are now introducing these fields like remote address in individual TLVs and proposing *hacky* encoding of link-ids in the remote IP address field for unnumbered links instead of re-using existing well defined generic TLVs.
<Shraddha> Pls refer the latest draft draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-06. New sub-tlvs defined for generic use.

3) I am not sure why the reference to use of OSPFv3 extended LSAs for link level area-scoped signalling was removed from this version of the draft.
<Shraddha>Since OSPFv3 entended LSA hasn't progressed, the WG has decided to progress other draft and defer any dependency to a separate document.

4) I also have an objection to the reference of RFC4203 for the procedures for obtaining the remote interface-id since that mechanism is outside the scope of what this draft is trying to standardize. Specifically, I have a problem since it gives an impression that the mechanism described in RFC4203 is *the* procedure for obtaining the remote interface-id since that specification is very specific to the GMPLS/TE use-cases and it is not a generic/based OSPF protocol mechanism. We have proposed an alternate mechanism for doing this in a manner consistent with OSPFv3 and ISIS in draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id. We can debate the need for this mechanism in a separate thread, but the reference to RFC4203 does not seem necessary here to me.
<Shraddha>This is discussed in other threads.

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 20 April 2017 04:02
To: Acee Lindem <>; Shraddha Hegde <>
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 ( 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 ( I would suggest removing the reference.


On 4/19/17, 9:11 AM, "Acee Lindem" <> 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.
>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Shraddha Hegde <>
>> 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 [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:28 AM
>> Cc:
>> 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"
>> < on behalf of> wrote:
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
>>> This draft is a work item of the Open Shortest Path First IGP of the 
>>>       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:
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSPF mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list

OSPF mailing list