Mitchel wrote:
IS-IS has two levels of neighbors via hello level 1s (LSAs) and hello
level 2s :, so immediate is somewhat relative..
As Tony said, Level-2 neighbors are still directly adjacent.
There might be layer-2 switches between them.
But there are never layer-3 routers between 2 adjacent level-2
neighbors.
Les's point is that interfaces, linecards, and the interface
between the data-plane and the control-plane can all be seen
as points between 2 ISIS instances/process on two different
routers, where ISIS messages might be dropped. And that
therefor you need congestion-control (in stead of, or added
to) receiver-side flow-control.
Sorry, I disagree, Link capacity is always an issue..
Note, we're not trying to find the maximum number of LSPs
we can transmit. We just want to improve the speed a bit.
From 33 LSPs/sec today to 10k LSPs/sec or something in
that order. There's no need to send 10 million LSPs/sec.
Suppose the average LSP is 500 bytes.
Suppose a router sends 10k LSPs per second.
I think if ISISes can send 10k LSPs/sec, we've solved the problem
for 99.99% of networks.
10k LSPs is 5 000 000 bytes. Is 40 000 000 bits. Is 40 Mbps.
So a continuous stream of 10k LSPs/sec takes 40 Mbps to transmit.
For LSP-flooding, bandwidth itself is never the problem.
henk.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
