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

Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net> Thu, 20 April 2017 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <shraddha@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E7712EB30 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.802
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.802 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_H2=-2.8, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 mhqIQ1VOY_vU for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0136.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62FAF12EB37 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=8xYMrHSuOR3OB76ryEZuAnLXQCRRZQP7KXsmIlnHoVU=; b=VlHHBebWDznmXTUbt/k7z7NSjBYoDb956xBHGHN3tXYMyA+WcIZ2VKPTGhytU/zjLwBCdzE2Dnl0+PQLdPm2XSxI1pqkuhEEixUrFmdxjU8v+5kXW6G3VoWtTV2mX3yLhXWR/aOmk4tpp0H7CeeQmx2pb70jI0X7OApDdPNdp4A=
Received: from BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.2.135) by BN3PR05MB2707.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.2.136) 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 07:57:11 +0000
Received: from BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.2.135]) by BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.2.135]) with mapi id 15.01.1047.008; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:57:11 +0000
From: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
CC: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSjfBr/zBnN6RWkkuWtTeurnw/t6GZplOAgDNYtkCAAAHqgIAAnLCAgABmipCAAApGAIAAF0vggAAGIoCAAA5RgA==
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:57:11 +0000
Message-ID: <BN3PR05MB27068ED0B7B1C2785D888FEED51B0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <148786668469.20333.199396876398174521.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D4F1C502.A346C%acee@cisco.com> <BN3PR05MB27066BF8587D26282B08B579D5180@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <03D9AC38-2C54-411B-B108-6B2D07CA5701@gmail.com> <D51D5BD0.A9768%acee@cisco.com> <BN3PR05MB27066250A45FF243E851F5F3D51B0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <8bbcc21d28a043629b237429abeee2a6@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com> <BN3PR05MB2706404B7A69FDFA7222C7B3D51B0@BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <de2b7468f98945d49777fe1df7fdf62e@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <de2b7468f98945d49777fe1df7fdf62e@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.11]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR05MB2707; 7:GE8bEtFz/w14QnFJGSYgZYXvX4qlY0WRqtBzrIXfNoAYtGKBzVY3DGUxNJJedd4jq+CUfM7f0ppnfqnIhKg9ujtBiWuZ2tF2eWN1KgK8saAGJQBdfkJkrr6zXIxxxXId5UIGniYn7q9AhDgZxRBNAXMVDO9UVO+B9icbegsdHWtubSOaFnJ9PtfoSGZy/B6MfUj0X2sw/0fXa9oBrg9EhkPT5SkBs7rnGEjDqlmGuSuIRfVGFw8HmaN0Q2rxCkRM18AOgxZOjjgNkj/QLEtYTnfiVou9yhGqu6oHMfnZZpmQmPDJ277ekL578i6IaEHhvkhgY93mGdqkfPsyHTy5lQ==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 94aa7894-2416-43d8-6a9b-08d487c2da0f
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR05MB2707A9A41F5B69B8CA229B68D51B0@BN3PR05MB2707.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(120809045254105)(138986009662008)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(201703131423075)(201703011903075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(6072148); SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707;
x-forefront-prvs: 02830F0362
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39410400002)(39860400002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39400400002)(39850400002)(377424004)(13464003)(24454002)(377454003)(93886004)(55016002)(99286003)(33656002)(6436002)(66066001)(74316002)(122556002)(230783001)(102836003)(6116002)(76176999)(9686003)(6306002)(38730400002)(7736002)(3846002)(54356999)(50986999)(53936002)(305945005)(6246003)(81166006)(8936002)(8676002)(189998001)(7696004)(2900100001)(25786009)(53546009)(3280700002)(2950100002)(4326008)(6506006)(86362001)(39060400002)(229853002)(5660300001)(3660700001)(2906002)(77096006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR05MB2707; H:BN3PR05MB2706.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; 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-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Apr 2017 07:57:11.6459 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR05MB2707
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/yTwKCfaaU6TFB4AFRtwtqmxZSpQ>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:57:17 -0000

Ketan,

OSPF link overload has relevance for TE based applications as well as non-TE applications.
So what's the problem in referring a  well-defined mechanism of getting the interface-ids?

Can you explain why you are so concerned with referencing a standard RFC 
 which is out there and deployed for so many years?

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ketant@cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:31 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Shraddha,

There are also other applications that your draft lists which are TE independent and hence the case for not referring to a specific way for signalling interface-ids which is TE specific.

I don't understand why you would be so reluctant to remove a reference which is not even central to the topic of the draft?

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:shraddha@juniper.net]
Sent: 20 April 2017 12:11
To: Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Ketan,

We do have traffic engineering applications that require link-overload functionality.
Pls refer section 7.2.


Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ketant@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:46 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Hi Shraddha,

The RFC 4203 describes the usage and application of TE LSAs for GMPLS/TE use cases. The OSPF link overload RFC is independent of TE and hence it is a concern that an implementation needs to use TE LSAs with link-local scope just for signalling the interface-ids for unnumbered links.

Not asking for reference to draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id. Just asking to remove reference to RFC 4203 since the mechanism for signalling interface-ids is orthogonal to the subject of the draft which is generic to OSPF and independent of any TE/GMPLS use-case(s).

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: OSPF [mailto:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: 20 April 2017 10:17
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OSPF] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-05.txt

Hi Acee,

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


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.

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:02 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@gmail.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha@juniper.net>
Cc: ospf@ietf.org
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" <acee.lindem@gmail.com> 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 <shraddha@juniper.net>
>>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:ospf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>>(acee)
>> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 2:28 AM
>> Cc: ospf@ietf.org
>> 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 internet-drafts@ietf.org"
>> <ospf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org> 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
>>> OSPF@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf