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

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:02:20 +0000

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.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 6/27/16, 10:00 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> 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. 
>
>Thanks,
>Acee 
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

---

From: Shraddha Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:27:28 +0000

Acee,

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.

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 7:32 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Cc: OSPF WG List <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] "OSPF Link Overhead" - draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-01

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.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 6/27/16, 10:00 AM, "OSPF on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>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.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee
>

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:37:36 +0000

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

On 6/30/16, 9:27 AM, "Shraddha Hegde" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Where only link local information flooding would suffice so that
>alternate should be provided in the document.
>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.
>
>Thanks,
>Acee 
>