Hi all, It’s been another week and we’ve had a few more very interesting conversations, but we seem to have not moved very far.
Have we converged? Tony > Hi all, > > I hope that everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home from Prague and that > no one else had the seat right in front of the screaming baby. ;-) > > I would like to re-open the discussion on the mailing list. Based on the > off-line discussions that I had with folks, I believe that we’re leaning > towards including the LANs in the signaling and rate limiting link addition > during repair. > > Dissent? Discussion? > > Tony > > >> On Mar 4, 2019, at 9:54 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> Hello, >> >> There are still two issues that need to be discussed and I was hoping that >> we could make progress on the mailing list before Prague. >> >> 1) Temporary additions to the flooding topology >> >> There are several cases where we would like to make temporary additions to >> the flooding topology: repairing a partition of the flooding topology or >> adding a node to the base topology for the first time. We can: >> >> (a) Temporarily add all of the links that would appear to remedy the >> partition. This has the advantage that it is very likely to heal the >> partition and will do so in the minimal amount of convergence time. >> >> (b) For each node adjacent to the partition, add no more than a single >> link across the partition. If that does not repair the partition in a while >> (LSP propagation time + SPF time), then add another link. >> Iterate as necessary. This has the advantage that it minimizes the >> risk of creating a cascade failure. >> >> 2) Inclusion of pseduonodes in the System IDs TLV >> >> In the general case, a topology can include LANs. If a LAN is in parallel >> with a P2P link, the Area Leader cannot currently distinguish between the >> two links. This can be of importance if there are other >> systems also on the LAN that should be using their LAN interface for >> flooding. >> >> We propose to change the System IDs TLV to include a pseudo-node ID as >> well as the system ID. It would also make sense to rename the TLV to be the >> “IS-IS Area Node IDs TLV”. >> >> Behaviorally, we should add a requirement that if the Area Leader includes >> a pseudonode in the flooding topology, then all systems with an adjacency on >> that LAN should use the LAN as part of the >> flooding topology, whether or not they are explicitly listed as adjacent >> to the LAN in the Flooding Path TLV. >> >> Thoughts? Comments? Flames? >> >> Regards, >> Tony >> > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
