Les,
> The problem is that restricting the prefix length does nothing to limit the > number of advertisements that get flooded. In a high-scale situation, when > there is a mass failure, it would lead to a flooding spike. That’s exactly > not the time to stress the system. > > [LES:] As I have stated previously, I share your concern about the behavior > during massive events – and some care has to be taken to prevent making a bad > situation worse. > That said, the WG (including you and I) is taking on enhancements to support > much faster flooding – on the order of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of > LSPs/second. We believe this can be done safely (though proof has not yet > been established). And the point of doing that was to help improve IGP convergence time… > So, if you believe (as your active participation suggests) that IGPs can > support faster flooding – why do you believe they cannot support liveness > notification at a similar scale? … not waste our time by inflating the LSDB by the same amount that we sped up flooding. Also, I don’t see how faster flooding has ANYTHING to do with it. Adding negative liveness information is primary a scale issue. > I get that you consider such notifications as architecturally undesirable – > we can agree to disagree on that point. > But I don’t get why you think the IGP’s ability to handle large scale events > is a showstopper in this case. I am opposed to anything that adds to the scale of the LSDB. Doubly so if it does so during failures, when the IGP is already under stress. As you well know, making an IGP stable during normal operations is one thing. Ensuring that it is stable during worst case topological changes is quite another. Adding scale during a mass failure is pessimal timing. T
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
