There is no virtually no difference between the two drafts in the way that
distributed mode works and your draft currently has no description of how
centralized mode works.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 12:30 PM
To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
Cc: tony...@tony.li; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>;
lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; Tony Przygienda
<tonysi...@gmail.com>; Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Hi John,
Two drafts are presented in just two IETFs. For centralized mode and
distributed one, one very important part is the their efficiency. It is better
to give some time for others to propose some new or more efficient solutions.
If one solution (say A) is much more efficient than another one (say B), which
one (A or B) will you select?
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: John E Drake [mailto:jdr...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 12:02 PM
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com<mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>>; Robert
Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Cc: tony...@tony.li<mailto:tony...@tony.li>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>;
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; Jeff Tantsura
<jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; Tony Przygienda
<tonysi...@gmail.com<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>; Peter Psenak
<ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Hi,
I think we have circled back to the implicit point of my original email, viz,
why do we need two drafts that solve the same problem in more or less the same
way, especially given that one is much more robust and complete than the other?
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com<mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:24 AM
To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net<mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>; Robert Raszuk
<rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Cc: tony...@tony.li<mailto:tony...@tony.li>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>;
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; Jeff Tantsura
<jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; Tony Przygienda
<tonysi...@gmail.com<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>; Peter Psenak
<ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Hi John,
See my comments inline below.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com<mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 9:50 AM
To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net<mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>; Robert Raszuk
<rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Cc: tony...@tony.li<mailto:tony...@tony.li>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>;
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; Jeff Tantsura
<jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; Tony Przygienda
<tonysi...@gmail.com<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>; Peter Psenak
<ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Hi John,
> I have reviewed both of the flood reduction drafts and the draft referenced
> below, draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02, seems to me to be a derivative
> document inferior in >quality to the draft, draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05,
> from which it is derived. For example, the referenced draft fails to include
> a description of the message used to deliver the >flooding topology when
> using centralized mode, it neglects to include any analysis of error
> conditions, and it neglects to include any description of the interactions
> with down->level nodes.
It seems that your word “derivative” is not correct. Our draft originally
focuses on distributed solution, Tony’s on centralized one. It is not
reasonable to say that a distributed solution is a derivative from a
centralized one.
[JD] Both discuss centralized and distributed
[HC] Both drafts talk about both now. It is not reasonable to say one is a
derivative of another.
Regarding to missing message for centralized mode in our draft as you
mentioned, it is for new ones to be added. We will fill this gap.
[JD] Please see:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05#section-5<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dli-2Ddynamic-2Dflooding-2D05-23section-2D5&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=OtsOoYoplgrllQAM3IzPelpEFY22UOyVbTeCEZVKvfs&s=G1nxMx0mq-ML451DGEvEZ_QClKB6lWjXE6LJrkmxnds&e=>
Regarding to missing analysis of error conditions, we will consider and add it.
[JD] Please see:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05#section-4.6<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dli-2Ddynamic-2Dflooding-2D05-23section-2D4.6&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=OtsOoYoplgrllQAM3IzPelpEFY22UOyVbTeCEZVKvfs&s=BXGDgpp4d36n9mToUIVYpJ1jK70LFDdWv_G35532MtU&e=>
[HC] For this, our draft talks about it. We will add more in details.
Regarding to interactions with down-level nodes, can you give more details?
[JD] Please see:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05#section-4<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dli-2Ddynamic-2Dflooding-2D05-23section-2D4&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=OtsOoYoplgrllQAM3IzPelpEFY22UOyVbTeCEZVKvfs&s=cQTQjUmBdJJJXLwNJuuICHOYwE09AmYdvM3tdz6JP5A&e=>,
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05#section-4.1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dli-2Ddynamic-2Dflooding-2D05-23section-2D4.1&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=OtsOoYoplgrllQAM3IzPelpEFY22UOyVbTeCEZVKvfs&s=7XTcJB8R7BWKwA6Gf9ZszZwlQUuVxDqnE-VkGBX2PPs&e=>
[HC] For this, our draft talks about it.
>Yours Irrespectively,
>
>John
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of
Huaimo Chen
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 11:01 AM
To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>
Cc: tony...@tony.li<mailto:tony...@tony.li>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>;
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; Jeff Tantsura
<jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; Tony Przygienda
<tonysi...@gmail.com<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>; Peter Psenak
<ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Hi Robert,
>> draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 allows operators to select distributed
>> mode, centralized one or static one smoothly.
>Aside from static approach can you summarize in purely technical points
>advantages your draft proposes over draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 ?
Initially, our draft focused on distributed solution for flooding reduction,
and Tony’s on centralized way. This should be one advantage. Distributed
solution is more practical.
In addition, we proposed the followings during the progress of our draft:
1) A method to allow flooding topology to be lean and to allow multiple
failures in an area;
2) A procedure for establishing a new adjacency between a (new) node and
an existing node supporting flooding reduction;
3) A way in which one touch (or command) to enable flooding reduction in a
whole area within a short time;
4) A way in which one touch (or command) to rollback flooding reduction to
normal flooding in a whole area smoothly;
5) A TLV for distributing the priority of a node to become a leader;
6) Three algorithms for building a flooding topology.
Distributed solution for flooding reduction is stable after we resolve the
issues raised by other experts during the last few IETFs.
BTW, as a service provider, which mode/solution (distributed or centralized)
will you select to use in an operational network?
Best Regards,
Huaimo
>Many thx,
>R.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Huaimo Chen
<huaimo.c...@huawei.com<mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Robert,
>Leader election happens automatically and procedures for that are to be vastly
>similar to today's DR or DIS election. So with this in mind one may observe
>that both OSPF and ISIS are pretty centralized on multiaccess networks today :)
Today’s DR or DIS election is local to a special interface/network such as a
broadcast interface. Leader election in a network is global. Every node in the
network depends on it (its flooding topology). These two seems different.
>Btw I don't think there is any problem here ... The text added to -05 version
>allows very seamless choice of centralized vs distributed topology computation
>by signalling either zero or non zero value in the added to version -05 area
>leader sub-tlv.
>
>In other words I don't see any problem or room for debate .. adopting and
>implementing -05 allows use of centralized or distributed optimal flooding
>computation at the operator's discretion.
draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 allows operators to select distributed
mode, centralized one or static one smoothly.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 11:31 AM
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@huawei.com<mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>>
Cc: tony...@tony.li<mailto:tony...@tony.li>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>;
Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>; Acee
Lindem (acee)
<acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Peter
Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>; Tony Przygienda
<tonysi...@gmail.com<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Hi Huaimo,
> Introducing centralized feature into IGP will break IGP's distributed nature
That clearly proves that word "centralized" has been significantly overloaded
here. To many indeed "centralized" means a controller (like OpenFlow or SDN)
and that such device added to a network is to push information - typically 1RU
linux blade - here optimized flooding graph. But this never was the plan with
this proposal from its start ie. -00 version.
Centralized means that optimized flooding graph comes from single redundant
node.
Leader election happens automatically and procedures for that are to be vastly
similar to today's DR or DIS election. So with this in mind one may observe
that both OSPF and ISIS are pretty centralized on multiaccess networks today :)
To your point of multi-vendor networks true - and that is precisely why upgrade
network wide to a release containing consistent algorithm from more then a
single vendor (and even for single vendor) is practically a very time consuming
and difficult process.
Btw I don't think there is any problem here ... The text added to -05 version
allows very seamless choice of centralized vs distributed topology computation
by signalling either zero or non zero value in the added to version -05 area
leader sub-tlv.
In other words I don't see any problem or room for debate .. adopting and
implementing -05 allows use of centralized or distributed optimal flooding
computation at the operator's discretion.
Thx,
R.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Huaimo Chen
<huaimo.c...@huawei.com<mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>> I think distributed is more practical too.
>I would appreciate more detailed insights as to why you (and others) feel this
>way. It is not at all obvious to me.
IGP is distributed in nature. The distributed computation of flooding topology
like distributed SPF will keep IGP still distributed in nature. Introducing
centralized feature into IGP will break IGP's distributed nature, which may
cause some issues/problems.
>> For computing routes, we have been using distributed SPF on every node for
>> many years.
>True, but that algorithm is (and was) very well known and a fixed algorithm
>that would clearly solve the problem at the time. If we were in a similar
>situation, where we were ready to set an algorithm in >concrete, I might well
>agree, but it’s quite clear that we are NOT at that point yet. We will need
>to experiment and modify algorithms, and as discussed, that’s easier with a
>centralized approach.
After flooding reduction is deployed in an operational (ISP) network, will we
be allowed to do experiments on their network?
After an algorithm is determined/selected, will it be changed to another
algorithm in a short time?
>> In fact, we may not need to run the exact algorithm on every node. As long
>> as the algorithms running on different nodes generate the same result, that
>> would work.
>Insuring a globally consistent result without running the exact same algorithm
>on the exact same data will be quite a trick. Debugging distributed problems
>at scale is already a hard problem. Having >different algorithms in different
>locations would add another order of magnitude in difficulty. No thank you.
In some existing networks, some nodes run IGPs from one vendor, some other
nodes run IGPs from another vendor, and so on. Some may use normal SPF, some
others may use incremental SPF. It seems that we have had these cases for many
years.
>Tony
Best Regards,
Huaimo
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=dQNetSHGAsFGcKk3dMxdWF6zY3NJc1cUOiTIkr-KOMA&s=aj_vuMJsmKUm-qly2FE2m_7WtK2ra7w4ftfPz37zXB8&e=>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
