> Given the base work defined in draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding why is
> the use of Circuit Scoped LSPs required/useful?
Circuit scoped flooding is required to prevent unnecessary floods from being
carried beyond where they are needed in the network.
One thought ... the way I originally worded the draft was not to have two
separate databases, but rather just to insert LSPs received as circuit local
in the normal database and then clear the SRM for those LSPs, so the local
flooding process believes they have already been flooded, but they will be
included in the CSNP, etc., as normal. I'm not certain why we need two
databases here.
> [Les:] If you use the mechanisms defined in
> draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding there would be no need to use Circuit
> Scoped Flooding to send normal area scoped LSPs.
> Each node in the topology would know to which neighbors it should have
> flooding enabled - either because you operate in centralized mode and
> the Area Leader distributes the flooding topology or because you operate
> in distributed mode and all nodes employ the same algorithm. (The latter
Using an area leader, even to centrally calculate a flooding topology,
breaks the distributed nature of the solutions, and creates a much more
complex solution. If you operate in distributed mode, with a common
algorithm, I think you still need to specify what that algorithm is ... this
draft describes such an algorithm ... I think ... ??
> The fact that you apparently do NOT want to use the extensions defined
> in the dynamic-flooding draft means that (as you agree above) you have
> to introduce additional protocol extensions which aren't really
> necessary. This makes the solution much less appealing to me -
> independent of the merits/demerits of the algorithm itself.
Not really... we are modifying already existing protocol extensions, rather
than creating new ones.
The process described in this draft has already been tested, and is widely
used, in OSPF, btw (and doesn't use two databases there).
> The use of Circuit Scoped LSPs to send traditional area scoped LSPs is
> not at all what RFC 7356 intends. And it causes difficulties (as you
> have noted above) in what the content of CSNPs should be and how the
> different LSPDBs are used internally.
> The dynamic flooding draft wasn't in existence when Russ wrote the
> early versions of this draft. I am suggesting you might want to rethink
> your approach to take advantage of what dynamic flooding draft has
> defined.
The dynamic flooding draft assumes an area leader, which is what this draft
is attempting to avoid.
/r
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
