IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 05 October 2015 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
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 8C1701ACD83 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 i4nQqtaz7Vmu for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB4EE1A0354 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3342; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444052921; x=1445262521; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=RQsj6NXr1tX+8+MRLwkoTxsoiiKb6Nv0oTgHWclVyCk=; b=dN1s3eFSgN1U2yORgm3h2jfnn1HHGRAKebRXahfAlFxQ5PVYASlcnVat +4NGRlcqyLQYZzriNWDyTsIG3dbvRSP7hLCqo8OOfla/9dBOdu4Y5Rrk1 BbogtNeNtlEraOprAeUbtM7W50nhPDPsbBrBWmet7uBZZHtVzT8aVb55v Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AFAgBjfxJW/5tdJa1egydUbga+DAENgVoXCoV5AhyBEzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCQBAQEEAQEBIBE6CwwEAgEIEQQBAQECAiMDAgICJQsUAQgIAgQBDQWILg2oAZQAAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSBIopPhFoIKwcEAoJjgUMFlXwBjRabYx8BAUKEAnGHOYEGAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,638,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="38084222"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2015 13:48:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t95DmC2v031585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:48:12 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 08:48:11 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (173.36.12.89) by xch-aln-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 08:48:11 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.127]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 08:48:11 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <anil.sn@huawei.com>, Pushpasis Sarkar <psarkar@juniper.net>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
Thread-Index: AQHQ9/MdJMB0YsR7d0CkMD6XMtCYyZ5RXZAwgACngYCAAOZAsIAAjtgA///5vgCAAANVAIAAHdGAgAAGI4CAAAMzAIAAHeHwgACKfQCAAHadAIAAE9mAgAAL2ACAAAfTAIAIJPKA
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:48:11 +0000
Message-ID: <D237F757.33DDD%acee@cisco.com>
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> <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF06C06250B@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <327562D94EA7BF428CD805F338C31EF06C06250B@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <7793F1684957E449A9D828877E6EEE02@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/lgdTMrwzfhRYNcEiGKq04-2ZP3Q>
Cc: Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, Mohan Nanduri <mnanduri@microsoft.com>, "Jalil, Luay" <luay.jalil@verizon.com>
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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:48:43 -0000

Anil, 

On 9/30/15, 1:25 AM, "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)"
<anil.sn@huawei.com> wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>In support of the draft : draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
>Draft makes sense in below scenario I suppose, I could be wrong.
>
>Case where Router detectes some fault in link, would like to advertize
>link as unusable for a while.
>
>If any router using TI-LFA for FRR might be using this link for stiching
>P & Q-nodes. 
>Link Overload sub TLV might help LFA clacualting node to use some other
>link for that period of time.

It is already advertised at max-metric, for LFA/RLFA my implementation
(Ericsson) avoided using max-metric links…

Acee 


>
>Possibly router under maintainence could be refresh router LSA with out
>this link, Backward link check fails
>and link under maintaince will not be used. I think this would be treated
>as topology change which is not the case.
>
>I feel Overloading Node and Link are done for short period of time and
>might come handy while debugging/isolating network issues.
>
>Thanks & Regards
>Anil S N
>
>"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon
>Postel
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pushpasis Sarkar
>> Sent: 30 September 2015 10:28
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Shraddha Hegde; Acee Lindem (acee)
>> Cc: Hannes Gredler; OSPF WG List; Mohan Nanduri; Jalil, Luay
>> Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-
>> overload-01
>> 
>> Hi Les,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/30/15, 9:45 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >><Shraddha>As I indicated before, max-metric can work in most common
>> >>scenarios but not all. There could be cases where an alternate path
>> >>cannot be found Satisfying the constraints so LSP remains on the link
>> >>undergoing maintenance since the link is still a last resort link.
>> >
>> >[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?
>> 
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email