Robert,
I agree with you…
Disruptions based on protocol changes with non-current/legacy
type products and/or intenal black-hole , loss of packets/rexmits, aka
reliability should be primary. Even good/great ideas of IPv4 / IPv6
intermediate systems/routers find small incompatibilities either with the
protocol and/or CLI errors.
With that said, I definitely like the OSPF DR/BDR functionality
in Eth/multi-access/non-p2p environments for single router failures IMO adds
reliability and mitigates certain types of disruptions.
However, with wireless devices, one must still respect that
bottlenecks need to be resolved when dealing with these slower/down ward
scaling environments. This is just not just a packet-per-sec / bytes-per-second
issue but frequently are smaller packet/segment sizes , a scaling of the number
of simultaneous connections, and loss of packets/segments in these newer
environments
And, sorry, Eth is there with 100Gb and LACP exists, that will
eventually push upward scaling proposals.
Mitchell Erblich
[email protected]
> On May 6, 2020, at 12:52 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Christian,
>
> It is not about "hand-wringing and theorizing about being too-successful".
>
> It is about impact to the overall network service when you make ISIS
> convergence not consistent across nodes of the topology, I think our goal is
> not to converge ISIS faster by improving flooding speed .... it is much more
> about how to deliver user packets with minimal disruption upon topology
> changes.
>
> Best,
> R.
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 5:48 AM Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote:
> [as WG member]
>
> I think it would be more productive if we stay focused on trying to improve
> flooding speed/efficiency here. How about let's get some of the proposals
> being mulled over actually written, and provide some data, and leave all the
> hand-wringing and theorizing about being too-successful for after we've shown
> we could be? :)
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>
> > On May 5, 2020, at 8:03 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > But this proves that consistent convergence time in a domain is rather a
> > good thing regardless if it takes 2 sec or 50 sec on all nodes.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
