Hi Aijun,
On 29/05/2019 03:43, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Peter:
Under the current mechanism, only all the candidate area leaders stop advertise
this sub-TLV, then the network will be back to normal flooding?
no.
Is it more efficient that only one area leader indicates(according to the
command from NMS) explicitly then the network will be back to normal flooding?
yes and we have that in the draft:
"When the Area Leader advertises algorithm 0 in its Area Leader Sub-
TLV and does not advertise a flooding topology, Dynamic Flooding is
disabled for the area. Note this applies whether the Area Leader
intends to operate in centralized mode or in distributed mode."
For the number of candidate area leaders, I support we should have more than
one for consideration of redundancy.
sure.
thanks,
Peter
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2019年5月28日 15:34
收件人: Aijun Wang; 'Tony Li'; 'Robert Raszuk'
抄送: lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] 答复: Option B from "Migration between normal flooding and flooding
reduction"
Aijun,
On 28/05/2019 08:15, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Tony:
How the receiver judge the leader has stopped advertising the Area Leader
sub-TLV? Do you need some timers?
no timer needed, all event driven. Area Leader sub-TLV is removed from the LSP.
thanks,
Peter
>From the current discussion, I think the explicit instruction that proposed by
Huaimo is more acceptable.
Best Regards.
Aijun Wang
Network R&D and Operation Support Department China Telecom Corporation
Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Tony Li [mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2019年5月27日 12:20
收件人: Robert Raszuk
抄送: lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] Option B from "Migration between normal flooding and flooding
reduction"
Hi Robert,
The current draft is pretty robust in terms of area leader election. It also says
that "Any node that is capable MAY advertise its eligibility to become Area
Leader”
Correct. This can be all systems. It can be one. For redundancy, a few would
be sensible.
With that can you confirm the procedure to "resign" as area leader ?
Stop advertising the Area Leader sub-TLV. It’s that simple.
Especially that under those circumstances just having active area leader to
resign clearly is not enough to change given flooding scheme.
If there are multiple potential area leaders, then all of them would have to
resign.
In some deployments all eligible nodes may advertise such capability which in turn the
"resign" procedure would require NMS action to disable such capability by configuration
and re-flooding it. Not that I am advocating it nor see need for complex migration procedures, but
just would like to better understand the "resign" part.
Correct, this is rightfully an NMS operation.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
