Hi Aijun,
The current machinery supports a model where you can have as many area leader
candidates as you believe you need for redundancy. It is deployment dependent
on how many you have. We really want the same machinery to handle both failure
or the area leader or changes to the configuration of the flooding algorithm.
However, I'd expect the latter to be a rare event.
Thanks,
Acee
On 5/28/19, 9:44 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Aijun Wang" <lsr-boun...@ietf.org on
behalf of wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> 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?
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?
For the number of candidate area leaders, I support we should have more
than one for consideration of redundancy.
-----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
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
