Hi Les, Yes this "small delay" of ACK aggregation is something which I am a bit worried here from SNPs sender side.
Now as indeed draft mentioned prioritizing SNPs on reception let me indicate that some platforms I have not so long ago dealt with do not even prioritize any IGP packet over other packets at neither ingress LC nor queue to RE/RP. If that channel takes 100s of ms within the box I am afraid all bets for flooding improvement are off. Thx R,. On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 6:48 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert – > > > > Thanx for your input. > > > > Note that one of the suggestions in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-flooding-scale/ > is to prioritize the reception of SNPs over LSPs so that we are less > likely to drop ACKs. > > It is not clear to me why you think SNP generation would be an issue. > > Once a received LSP is processed one of the outputs is to set a per > interface flag indicating that an ACK (PSNP) needs to be sent (SSN flag). > Implementations usually implement some small delay so that multiple ACKs > can be sent in a single PSNP – but I do not see why this should be viewed > as a bottleneck. > > > > If your concern is that we need to emphasize the importance of sending > timely ACKs, I think we could look at text that makes that point. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Lsr <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Robert Raszuk > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2020 1:07 AM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Flow Control Discussion for IS-IS Flooding Speed > > > > Hi Les & all, > > > > Watching this discussion I would like to state that IMO going with > transmitter based rate limiting (I would not call it flow control) is much > easier option to deploy and operate. It also has no dependency across other > side of p2p adj which is a very important factor. The only issue here is if > generation of [P|C]SNPs is fast enough. > > > > Receiver based flow control is simple in flow theory however I have a > feeling that if we are to go that path we would be much better to actually > run ISIS flooding over DC-TCP and avoid reinventing the wheel. > > > > Thx, > > Robert. > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
