I agree w/ Peter. Yours Irrespectively,
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 2:38 AM > To: tony...@tony.li; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding > > Hi Tony, > > On 04/03/2019 18:54 , tony...@tony.li 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. > > I prefer (a) because of the faster convergence. > Adding all links on a single node to the flooding topology is not going to > cause > issues to flooding IMHO. > > > > > 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. > > given that the flooding on the LAN in both OSPF and ISIS is done as multicast, > there is currently no way to enable flooding, either permanent or temporary, > towards a subset of the neighbors on the LAN. So if the flooding is enabled > on a > LAN it is done towards all routers connected to the it. > > Given that all links between routers are p2p these days, I would vote for > simplicity and make the LAN always part of the FT. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > > > Thoughts? Comments? Flames? > > > > Regards, > > Tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > > man_listinfo_lsr&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoC > > I&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=- > E417ANRfgLCiCgXawxe > > jcJyxNXCOHzVoAMRCQET2qU&s=LRWmU6Ra23ZzfiJF- > sz0YFSTvQX5bU5qdQk5BKdhCX0& > > e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lsr&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0 > UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=- > E417ANRfgLCiCgXawxejcJyxNXCOHzVoAMRCQET2qU&s=LRWmU6Ra23ZzfiJF- > sz0YFSTvQX5bU5qdQk5BKdhCX0&e= _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
