OSPF Link Overload
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-08

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ospf WG)
Last updated 2017-07-27
Replaces draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf xml html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Open Shortest Path First IGP                                    S. Hegde
Internet-Draft                                    Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                               P. Sarkar
Expires: January 18, 2018                                     H. Gredler
                                                              Individual
                                                              M. Nanduri
                                                        ebay Corporation
                                                                L. Jalil
                                                                 Verizon
                                                           July 17, 2017

                           OSPF Link Overload
                    draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-08

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.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Hegde, et al.           Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             OSPF link overload                  July 2017

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Flooding Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Link-Overload sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  OSPFv2 Link-overload sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Remote IPv4 address sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  Local/Remote Interface ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  OSPFv3 Link-Overload sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Elements of procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Point-to-point links  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Broadcast/NBMA links  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Point-to-multipoint links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  Unnumbered interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.5.  Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP interfaces  . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Backward compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Pseudowire Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  Controller based Traffic Engineering Deployments  . . . .   9
     7.3.  L3VPN Services and sham-links . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.4.  Hub and spoke deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
Show full document text