Re: [OSPF] "OSPF Link Overhead" - draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-01

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Thu, 30 June 2016 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3411412D9C8; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 06:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 ho1Dh1ZNbKuc; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 06:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C58212DA0B; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 06:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3014; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467293858; x=1468503458; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=8c2JhbEA6AZwT0YfT0SzU9uSJMWvIFOK7etV7ezNivs=; b=iRluNjvVHUy3CiusBYwwUYhwr/fq0vN+6PUtDl4DIm5/KAVgOsFmsyMT EmnHkdMryNsc0bbuxhJtF3P9tu9DTKODP+PMO2QxCZ1HJLov3NOF1QKJp Q9d/7nvdXlF625byftiIGD6B9ubwAeFminWyvUT/619TA/jlrZsOX3Uam o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,552,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="291150563"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jun 2016 13:37:37 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5UDbb5k004122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:37:37 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:37:36 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:37:36 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Shraddha Hegde <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] "OSPF Link Overhead" - draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-01
Thread-Index: AQHR0HyFHYsn+P+9Y0uR9BNlktlqA6ACBGfggAADooA=
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:37:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: OSPF WG List <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] "OSPF Link Overhead" - draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 30 Jun 2016 13:37:43 -0000

Hi Shraddha, 
That is correct and the proposed RI LSA extensions could be used in both
situations - just with different flooding scopes.

On 6/30/16, 9:27 AM, "Shraddha Hegde" <> wrote:

>If I understood your comment correctly, you are proposing that there are
>usecases for "link overload" feature
>Where only link local information flooding would suffice so that
>alternate should be provided in the document.
>I agree with you, will update the document and resubmit soon.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Acee Lindem (acee) []
>Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 7:32 PM
>To: Acee Lindem (acee) <>;
>Cc: OSPF WG List <>
>Subject: Re: [OSPF] "OSPF Link Overhead" -
>Speaking as WG co-chair:
>I think we can move towards WG last call with this addition. Note that
>the document needs to be refreshed as it will expire soon.
>On 6/27/16, 10:00 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
>< on behalf of> wrote:
>>Speaking as WG member:
>>One area of mild contention with this draft has been whether the
>>advertisement that the link is being taken out of service needs to be
>>advertised beyond the link endpoint router (which will take the
>>appropriate action of advertising the maximum link metric in the
>>reverse direction). We have gotten somewhat entangled into use case
>>discussions and whether or not this is really necessary.
>>What I’d like to propose is that offer the alternative of advertising
>>the OSPF RI LSA with link-scope (fully supported by RFC 7770). This
>>way, the advertisement could be restricted to the local link in
>>situations where the knowledge doesn’t really need to go anywhere else.
>>Note that the current text doesn’t prevent this so this is merely a
>>matter of describing the use case.
>>OSPF mailing list