Anil, On 9/30/15, 1:25 AM, "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] 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)" <[email protected]> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
