Hi Les,
Thanks much.
I have defined a deterministic solution.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
-----Original Message-----
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 11:51 AM
To: Huaimo Chen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding
Huaimo -
I am aware of the other thread and the discussion you are having with Tony.
My reading of it is that you have not yet defined a deterministic solution to
this problem - you have only defined the goal. If you do define a deterministic
solution, that would be most welcome and we can then incorporate it in the
Dynamic Flooding draft.
Please continue the thread w Tony.
Thanx.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Huaimo Chen <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 8:47 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding
>
> Hi Les,
>
> For "add temporary flooding in a rate limited manner", can you
> give some details about how does the rate limit manner work for fixing
> a FT split? how does each node get the rate limit? Will every node add
> temporary flooding on a given number of links independently? If so,
> there are lots of links to be added into the FT temporarily for fixing
> the FT split. This may cause some issues.
> In another thread "[Lsr] Min Links for Multiple Failures on
> Flooding Topology", there is a solution for fixing the FT split using
> almost minimum number of links.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg)
> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 11:09 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding
>
> Tony -
>
> Here is my take.
>
> Regarding Issue #2 below, we had a healthy thread on this since Prague
> and I believe have consensus that we WILL support LANs in the encoding
> of the flooding topology (centralized mode). Authors need to agree on
> changes to the draft which we will take offline and then publish an update.
>
> Regarding Issue #1 below, we did have a thread on this BEFORE Prague
> and seemed to reach consensus on:
>
> <snip>
> Let me propose that we add something to sections 6.7.5, 6.7.9, and
> 6.7.11
> like:
>
> Addition of temporary flooding should be done with caution, as the
> addition of excessive connectivity to the flooding topology may
> trigger unwanted behavior. Routers SHOULD add temporary flooding in a
> rate limited manner, if not configured otherwise.
>
> <end snip>
>
> (See attached email)
>
> Again, authors need to address this in the next draft revision but I
> believe we have agreement in principle.
>
> So I think we can consider these matters resolved - pending WG
> feedback on the updated draft whenever it becomes available.
>
> Les
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 7:27 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding
> >
> >
> > 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
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
