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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Thu, 08 October 2015 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52ADB1ACE33 for <>; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XJpSiFZ9vMH for <>; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8C31ACE3A for <>; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6172; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444338432; x=1445548032; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=1uD/y/x4zMzbPF3c1nk2LzVTr2V8vzsxRoo5hGqCo1w=; b=PKW5KVJAxhAzYjWzadlxMisJnfRPz5vPTiR4N/ZWyu42txXNgIYOsqE1 +IMLRDM+mFjhZqcd6ojcpjHDLQ+gKbFyYhvQIcXPp/eC8LsmbnIr6E8m/ F/O1cy0IYcbv/Kq6/p5Xdl5pvh5wadP0kg5OZhH/IQhgPJZSH0mAD/9mp w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,655,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="35731425"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2015 21:07:11 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t98L7B6W024041 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 21:07:11 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:07:10 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:07:10 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:07:10 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Shraddha Hegde <>, Pushpasis Sarkar <>
Thread-Topic: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 21:07:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Hannes Gredler <>, OSPF WG List <>, Mohan Nanduri <>, "Jalil, Luay" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 08 Oct 2015 21:07:14 -0000

Hi Shraddha, 
If this is truly TE, why would you use the OSPF prefix/link attribute
instead of the actual TE metric specified in RFC 3630?

On 9/29/15, 1:05 PM, "Shraddha Hegde" <> wrote:

>I am not sure if I am able to convey what I mean by the "controller use
>case" in the previous mail thread. Here is another attempt to explain the
>use case.
>With metric change there is no guarantee that LSP will move to a
>different path. If the current path satisfies all constraints of the LSP
>and there is no better path
>Satisfying the constraints then the LSP would remain up and very much on
>the link that is going to be replaced. I mentioned in another mail
>thread, the high metric is
>Usable metric and does not mean "link down".
>Link maintenance is a special scenario. The LSP MUST move out of the
>link. Controller can take special actions if it knows the link is in
>overload state
>For Ex: Relax certain constraints of the LSP for the duration of
>maintenance and move the LSP on a different path.
>All these activities should happen in a non- disruptive fashion for the
>service and that’s the reason the link metric cannot be changed to
>max-metric (0xffffffff)
>If the "link overload" information remains at the link level, controller
>needs to take action based on metric alone.
>It might work for most cases assuming there are better alternate paths
>satisfying same constraints but we cannot guarantee
>LSPs will move from the link in all cases. If we consider a case when
>multiple links in the network go for maintenance/replacement
>then there is higher probability that alternate paths satisfying the
>constraints can't be found and controller needs to perform special
>actions to
>move the LSPs around.
>IMHO, "link overload" is a characteristic of the link just like color,
>bandwidth etc and it makes sense to flood it area wide just like other
>attributes of the link.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pushpasis Sarkar
>Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 8:27 PM
>To: Acee Lindem (acee) <>
>Cc: Shraddha Hegde <>et>; OSPF WG List <>rg>;
>Hannes Gredler <>at>; Mohan Nanduri
><>>; Jalil, Luay <>
>Subject: Re: OSPF Link Overload - draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload-01
>Hi Acee,
>On 9/29/15, 8:15 PM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <> wrote:
>>I apologize if I offended you. I just wanted to avoid the circular
>>discussions and repetition of information having no bearing on the
>>issues raised.  
>[Pushpasis] No no. You have not offended me in any ways. So we are good
>then. I was worried that I might have offended you instead. :)
>>> [Pushpasis] Like mentioned already, and again in my opinion, this will
>>>help the controller deal with scenarios where it needs to distinguish
>>>between situations in which a link has been administratively put into
>>>‘out-of-order’ from situations where the link has degraded to a
>>>‘malfunctioning’ state and needs attention. Unfortunately I cannot come
>>>up with a use-cases how this distinction can be used (other than
>>>diverting service traffics away from the links). Perhaps some of the
>>>operators may throw more light.
>>I’d like to hear from the operators (especially the authors Luay and
>[Pushpasis] Me too :)
>>> Hoping I have not failed to communicate once more. If you still feel
>>>so, please let me know. And I will refrain myself from answering on
>>>this thread further.
>>I think we are communicating now - the main question is what does this
>>link-maintenance condition needs to be flooded throughout the OSPF
>>routing domain when it seems that link-local signaling would offer a
>>much more straight-forward solution. The response so far has been, “For
>>the controller use-case” without any explanation of why increasing the
>>forward and reverse metrics isn’t enough (especially since you are doing
>>this anyway for backward compatibility). Les Ginsberg raised the same
>[Pushpasis] I will not further exaggerate my already-expressed reasoning
>as I do not have a definite use case in hand. Hoping some operators in
>the working group may have more solid use-cases for this.
>Thanks and Regards,