On 9/30/15, 2:42 AM, "Uma Chunduri" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Perhaps the last resort for all the nodes in the network for >primary/backup path computations. >But I see having this additional information of link undergoing >maintenance @ controller can help >operator to craft a policy to use/not-to-use this path at all for >certain LSPs. Maybe you can describe this use case as I fail to see it. Thanks, Acee > >I am fine with this addition of this information. > >-- >Uma C. > >-----Original Message----- >From: OSPF [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pushpasis Sarkar >Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 9:58 PM >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
