OSPF Link Overload
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8379.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Shraddha Hegde , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler , Mohan Nanduri , Luay Jalil | ||
| Last updated | 2017-07-27 (Latest revision 2017-07-02) | ||
| Replaces | draft-hegde-ospf-link-overload | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-10)
by Joel Halpern
Almost ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8379 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-08
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
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
When a node is being prepared for a planned maintenance or upgrade,
[RFC6987] provides mechanisms to advertise the node being in an
overload state by setting all outgoing link costs to MAX-METRIC
(0xffff). These procedures are specific to the maintenance activity
on a node and cannot be used when a single link attached to the node
requires maintenance.
In traffic-engineering deployments, LSPs need to be diverted from the
link without disrupting the services. It is useful to be able to
advertise the impending maintenance activity on the link and to have
LSP re-routing policies at the ingress to route the LSPs away from
the link.
Many OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 deployments run on overlay networks provisioned
by means of pseudo-wires or L2-circuits. Prior to devices in the
underlying network going offline for maintenance, it is useful to
divert the traffic away from the node before the maintenance is
actually scheduled. Since the nodes in the underlying network are
not visible to OSPF, the existing stub router mechanism described in
[RFC6987] cannot be used. An application specific to this use case
is described in Section 7.1
This document provides mechanisms to advertise link-overload state in
the flexible encodings provided by OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement([RFC7684]). Throughout this document, OSPF is used
when the text applies to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 is
used when the text is specific to one version of the OSPF protocol.
2. Motivation
The motivation of this document is to reduce manual intervention
during maintenance activities. The following objectives help to
accomplish this in a range of deployment scenarios.
1. Advertise impending maintenance activity so that traffic from
both directions can be diverted away from the link.
2. Allow the solution to be backward compatible so that nodes that
do not understand the new advertisement do not cause routing
loops.
3. Advertise the maintenance activity to other nodes in the network
so that LSP ingress routers/controllers can learn of the
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
impending maintenance activity and apply specific policies to re-
route the LSPs for traffic-engineering based deployments.
4. Allow the link to be used as last resort link to prevent traffic
disruption when alternate paths are not available.
3. Flooding Scope
The link-overload information is flooded in area scoped Extended Link
Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. The Link-Overload sub-TLV MAY be processed by
the head-end nodes or the controller as described in the Section 7.
The procedures for processing the Link-Overload sub-TLV is described
in Section 5.
4. Link-Overload sub-TLV
4.1. OSPFv2 Link-overload sub-TLV
The Link-Overload sub-TLV identifies the link being in overload
state. It is carried in extended Link TLV in the Extended Link
Opaque LSA as defined in [RFC7684].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Link-Overload sub-TLV for OSPFv2
Type : TBA (suggested value 5)
Length: 0
4.2. Remote IPv4 address sub-TLV
This sub-TLV specifies the IPv4 address of the link on remote side.
It is carried in extended Link TLV as defined in [RFC7684].This sub-
TLV is optional and MAY be advertised in area scoped Extended Link
Opaque LSA to identify the link when there are multiple parallel
interfaces between two nodes.
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Remote IPv4 address sub-TLV
Type : TBA (suggested value 4)
Length: 4
Value: Remote IPv4 address. The remote IP4 address is used to
identify the particular link when there are multiple parallel links
between two nodes.
4.3. Local/Remote Interface ID
This sub-TLV specifies local and remote interface identifiers. It is
carried in extended Link TLV as defined in [RFC7684].This sub-TLV is
optional and MAY be advertised in area scoped Extended Link Opaque
LSA to identify the link when there are multiple parallel unnumbered
interfaces between two nodes. The local interface-id is generally
readily available. One of the mechanisms to obtain remote interface-
id is described in [RFC4203].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV
Type : TBA (suggested value 11)
Length: 8
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
Value: 4 octets of Local Interface ID followed by 4 octets of Remote
interface ID.
4.4. OSPFv3 Link-Overload sub-TLV
The definition of OSPFv3 Link-Overload sub-TLV is defined below. The
area scope advertisement of Link-Overload sub-TLV for OSPFv3 will be
described in a separate document.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Link-Overload sub-TLV for OSPFv3
Type : TBA (Suggested value 4)
Length: 0
5. Elements of procedure
The Link-Overload sub-TLV indicates that the link identified by the
sub-TLV is overloaded. The node that has the link to be taken out of
service SHOULD originate the Link-Overload sub-TLV in the Extended
Link TLV in the Extended Link Opaque LSA as defined in [RFC7684] for
OSPFv2. The Link-Overload information is carried as a property of
the link and is flooded across the area. This information can be
used by ingress routers or controllers to take special actions. An
application specific to this use case is described in Section 7.2.
The precise action taken by the remote node at the other end of the
link identified as overloaded depends on the link type.
5.1. Point-to-point links
The node that has the link to be taken out of service MUST set metric
of the link to MAX-METRIC (0xffff) and re- originate the Router-LSA.
The TE metric SHOULD be set to MAX-TE-METRIC -1 (0xfffffffe) and the
node SHOULD re-originate the TE Link Opaque LSAs. When a Link-
Overload sub-TLV is received for a point-to-point link, the remote
node MUST identify the local link which corresponds to the overloaded
link and set the metric to MAX-METRIC (0xffff)and the remote node
MUST re-originate the router-LSA with the changed metric. The TE
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
metric SHOULD be set to MAX-TE-METRIC -1 (0xfffffffe) and the TE
opaque LSA for the link SHOULD be re-originated with new value.
Extended link opaque LSAs and the Extended link TLV are not scoped
for multi-topology [RFC4915]. In multi-topology deployments
[RFC4915], the Link-Overload sub-TLV carried in an Extended Link
opaque LSA corresponds to all the topologies the link belongs to.
The receiver node SHOULD change the metric in the reverse direction
corresponding to all the topologies to which the reverse link belongs
and re-originate the Router LSA as defined in [RFC4915].
When the originator of the Link-Overload sub-TLV purges the Extended
Link Opaque LSA or re-originates it without the Link-Overload sub-
TLV, the remote node must re-originate the appropriate LSAs with the
metric and TE metric values set to their original values.
5.2. Broadcast/NBMA links
Broadcast or NBMA networks in OSPF are represented by a star topology
where the Designated Router (DR) is the central point to which all
other routers on the broadcast or NBMA network connect logically. As
a result, routers on the broadcast or NBMA network advertise only
their adjacency to the DR. Routers that do not act as DR do not form
or advertise adjacencies with each other. For the Broadcast links,
the MAX-METRIC on the remote link cannot be changed since all the
neighbours are on same link. Setting the link cost to MAX-METRIC
would impact paths going via all neighbours.
The node that has the link to be taken out of service MUST set metric
of the link to MAX-METRIC(0xffff) and re-originate the Router-LSA.
The TE metric SHOULD be set to MAX-TE-METRIC -1(0xfffffffe) and the
node SHOULD re-originate the TE Link Opaque LSAs. For a broadcast
link, the two part metric as described in [RFC8042] is used. The
node originating the Link-Overload sub-TLV MUST set the metric in the
Network-to-Router Metric sub-TLV to MAX-METRIC 0xffff for OSPFv2 and
OSPFv3 and re-originate the LSAs the TLV is carried-in. The nodes
that receive the two part metric should follow the procedures
described in [RFC8042]. The backward compatibility procedures
described in [RFC8042] should be followed to ensure loop free
routing.
5.3. Point-to-multipoint links
Operation for the point-to-multipoint links is similar to the point-
to-point links. When a Link-Overload sub-TLV is received for a
point-to-multipoint link the remote node MUST identify the neighbour
which corresponds to the overloaded link and set the metric to MAX-
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
METRIC (0xffff). The remote node MUST re-originate the Router-LSA
with the changed metric and flood into the OSPF area.
5.4. Unnumbered interfaces
Unnumbered interface do not have a unique IP addresses and borrow
address from other interfaces. [RFC2328] describes procedures to
handle unnumbered interfaces in the context of the Router LSA. We
apply a similar procedure to the Extended Link TLV carrying the Link-
Overload sub-TLV in to handle unnumbered interfaces. The link-data
field in the Extended Link TLV carries the Local interface-id instead
of the IP address. The Local/Remote Interface ID sub-TLV MUST be
originated when there are multiple parallel unnumbered interfaces
between two nodes. One of the mechanisms to obtain interface-id of
the remote side are defined in [RFC4203].
5.5. Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP interfaces
Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP interfaces represent a broadcast network
modeled as P2MP interfaces. [RFC6845] describes procedures to handle
these interfaces. Operation for the Hybrid interfaces is similar to
the P2MP interfaces. When a Link-Overload sub-TLV is received for a
hybrid link the remote node MUST identify the neighbour which
corresponds to the overloaded link and set the metric to MAX-METRIC
(0xffff). All the remote nodes connected to originator MUST re-
originate the Router-LSA with the changed metric and flood into the
OSPF area.
6. Backward compatibility
The mechanism described in the document is fully backward compatible.
It is required that the originator of the Link-Overload sub-TLV as
well as the node at the remote end of the link identified as
overloaded understand the extensions defined in this document. In
the case of broadcast links, the backward compatibility procedures as
described in [RFC8042] are applicable.
7. Applications
7.1. Pseudowire Services
Many service providers offer pseudo-wire services to customers using
L2 circuits. The IGP protocol that runs in the customer network
would also run over the pseudo-wire to create seamless private
network for the customer. Service providers want to offer overload
kind of functionality when the PE device is taken-out for
maintenance. The provider should guarantee that the PE is taken out
for maintenance only after the service is successfully diverted on an
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
alternate path. There can be large number of customers attached to a
PE node and the remote end-points for these pseudo-wires are spread
across the service provider's network. It is a tedious and error-
prone process to change the metric for all pseudo-wires in both
directions. The link-overload feature simplifies the process by
increasing the metric on the link in the reverse direction as well so
that traffic in both directions is diverted away from the PE
undergoing maintenance. The Link-Overload feature allows the link to
be used as a last resort link so that traffic is not disrupted when
alternative paths are not available.
Private VLAN
=======================================
| |
| |
| ------PE3---------------PE4------CE3
| / \
| / \
CE1---------PE1----------PE2---------CE2
| \
| \
| ------CE4
| |
| |
| |
=================================
Private VLAN
Figure 5: Pseudowire Services
In the example shown in Figure 5, when the PE1 node is going for
maintenance, service providers set the PE1 to overload state. The
PE1 going in overload state triggers all the CEs (In this example
CE1)connected to the PE to set their pseudowire links passing via PE1
to link-overload state. The mechanisms used to communicate between
PE1 and CE1 is outside the scope of this document. CE1 sets the
link-overload state on its private VLAN connecting CE3, CE2 and CE4
and modifies the metric to MAX_METRIC and floods the information, the
remote end of the link at CE3, CE2, and CE4 also set the metric on
the link to MAX-METRIC and the traffic from both directions gets
diverted away from the link.
7.2. Controller based Traffic Engineering Deployments
In controller-based deployments where the controller participates in
the IGP protocol, the controller can also receive the link-overload
information as a warning that link maintenance is imminent. Using
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
this information, the controller can find alternate paths for traffic
which use the affected link. The controller can apply various
policies and re-route the LSPs away from the link undergoing
maintenance. If there are no alternate paths satisfying the traffic
engineering constraints, the controller might temporarily relax those
constraints and put the service on a different path. Increasing the
link metric alone does not specify the maintenance activity as the
metric could increase in events such as LDP-IGP synchronisation. An
explicit indication from the router using the link-overload sub-TLV
is needed to inform the Controller or head-end routers.
_____________
| |
-------------| Controller |--------------
| |____________ | |
| |
|--------- Primary Path ------------------|
PE1---------P1----------------P2---------PE2
| |
| |
|________P3________|
Alternate Path
Figure 6: Controller based Traffic Engineering
In the above example, PE1->PE2 LSP is set-up to satisfy a constraint
of 10 Gbps bandwidth on each link. The links P1->P3 and P3->P2 have
only 1 Gbps capacity and there is no alternate path satisfying the
bandwidth constraint of 10GB. When P1->P2 link is being prepared for
maintenance, the controller receives the link-overload information,
as there is no alternate path available which satisfies the
constraints, controller chooses a path that is less optimal and
temporarily sets up an alternate path via P1->P3->P2. Once the
traffic is diverted, the P1->P2 link can be taken out of service for
maintenance/upgrade.
7.3. L3VPN Services and sham-links
Many service providers offer L3VPN services to customers and CE-PE
links run OSPF [RFC4577]. When PE goes for maintenance, all the
links on the PE can be set to link-overlaod state which will gurantee
that the traffic from CEs also gets diverted. The interaction
between OSPF and BGP is outside the scope of this document.
Another useful usecase is when ISPs provide sham-link services to
customers [RFC4577].When PE goes for maintenance, all sham-links on
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
the PE can be set to link-overload state and traffic can be divered
from both ends without having to touch the configurations on the
remote end of the sham-links.
7.4. Hub and spoke deployment
OSPF is largely deployed in Hub and Spoke deployments with a number
of spokes connecting to the Hub. It is a general practice to deploy
multiple Hubs with all spokes connecting to these Hubs to achieve
redundancy. When a Hub node goes down for maintenance, all links on
the Hub can be set to link-overload state and traffic gets divered
from spoke sites as well without having to make configuration changes
on the spokes.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any further security issues other
than those discussed in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].
9. IANA Considerations
This specification updates one OSPF registry:
OSPF Extended Link TLVs Registry
i) TBD - Link-Overload sub-TLV
OSPFV3 Router Link TLV Registry
i) TBD - Link-Overload sub-TLV
OSPF RI TLV Registry
i) TBD - Link-Overload sub-TLV
BGP-LS Link NLRI Registry [RFC7752]
i)TBD - Link-Overload sub-TLV
10. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Chris Bowers for valuable inputs and edits to the document.
Thanks to Jeffrey Zhang,Acee Lindem and Ketan Talaulikar for inputs.
Thanks to Karsten Thomann for careful review and inputs on the
applications where link-overload is useful.
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC6845] Sheth, N., Wang, L., and J. Zhang, "OSPF Hybrid Broadcast
and Point-to-Multipoint Interface Type", RFC 6845,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6845, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6845>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8042] Zhang, Z., Wang, L., and A. Lindem, "OSPF Two-Part
Metric", RFC 8042, DOI 10.17487/RFC8042, December 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8042>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4577] Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the
Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4577, DOI 10.17487/RFC4577,
June 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4577>.
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.
Authors' Addresses
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Embassy Business Park
Bangalore, KA 560093
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Pushpasis Sarkar
Individual
Email: pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler
Individual
Email: hannes@gredler.at
Mohan Nanduri
ebay Corporation
2025 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, CA 98052
US
Email: mnanduri@ebay.com
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OSPF link overload July 2017
Luay Jalil
Verizon
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Hegde, et al. Expires January 18, 2018 [Page 14]