Hi Acee and Aijun,
Thank you very much for your discussion. I would like to share my thoughts on the proposed solutions. In my view, draft-hegde-lsr-ospf-better-idbx may not be as straight forward as it initially appears. Despite its local applicability, it entails a complex neighbor establishment process, which is fundamental to the OSPF protocol and typically not altered lightly by those familiar with its workings. On the other hand, draft-cheng-lsr-ospf-adjacency-suppress presents a more focused approach tailored to address the specific issue without unintended consequences. I still believe the key factor in evaluating any approach is whether it impacts the current systems negatively. Regarding our extensive discussions on these drafts, please refer to our previous records for more details. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=%22draft-cheng-lsr-ospf-adjacency-suppress%22 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best Regards, Liyan ----邮件原文----发件人：Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com>收件人：Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>抄 送: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>,Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>,lsr <lsr@ietf.org>,lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>,tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com>,shraddha <shrad...@juniper.net>发送时间：2024-07-11 23:26:57主题：[Lsr] Re: About Premature aging of LSA and Purge LSAAs WG member: On Jul 11, 2024, at 05:29, Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: And, there is also another draft aims to solve the similar problem https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cheng-lsr-ospf-adjacency-suppress-02, which it declares similar with the solution in IS-IS. Why not take this approach? Because this one doesn’t require any signaling and can accomplished via local behavior without requiring support from any other OSPF router. Additionally, it is simpler.. Well, at least for someone who has a deep understanding of the protocol. Thanks, Acee Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Aijun Wang发送时间: 2024年7月11日 17:20收件人: 39Acee Lindem39 <acee.i...@gmail.com>抄送: 39Peter Psenak39 <ppse...@cisco.com> 39Yingzhen Qu39 <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> 39lsr39 <lsr@ietf.org> 39lsr-chairs39 <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> 39tony Przygienda39 <tonysi...@gmail.com> 39shraddha39 <shrad...@juniper.net>主题: [Lsr] 答复: Re: About Premature aging of LSA and Purge LSA For the neighbors of the restarting router, why can’t they delete directly the LSAs that originated by the restarting router instead of putting them into one “Stale DB Exchange list” when they detect their neighbor is down? 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem发送时间: 2024年7月10日 22:14收件人: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>抄送: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> lsr <lsr@ietf.org> lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> shraddha <shrad...@juniper.net>主题: [Lsr] Re: About Premature aging of LSA and Purge LSA Yes - but the whole discussion of adjacency suppression and database synchronization is based on preventing TEMPORARY usage of stale LSAs leading to false bidirectional adjacencies during unplanned restart. RFC 2328 OSPF will converge without any modifications - there can just be transient traffic drops and/or loops. Thanks, Acee On Jul 9, 2024, at 20:42, Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: For the unplanned restart, shouldn’t the responsibility of the directed connect neighbors to send out such LSAs for the purge of obsolete LSA? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem发送时间: 2024年7月9日 20:14收件人: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>抄送: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> lsr <lsr@ietf.org> lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> shraddha <shrad...@juniper.net>主题: [Lsr] Re: About Premature aging of LSA and Purge LSA Additionally, you certainly don’t need a standards track solution to this problem. An implementation could honor MinLSInterval by simply locally keeping its own list of self-originated MaxAge LSAs and delaying reorigination. Thanks, Acee On Jul 9, 2024, at 04:13, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote: Aijun, On 09/07/2024 09:46, Aijun Wang wrote: Hi, Acee: Can the proposal in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-ospf-purge-lsa-00, together with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2328#section-14.1(Premature aging of LSAs) solve your mentioned problem? If so, is it simpler than your proposal? That is, before the router restart, it needs only send out the Purge LSA(when LSA sequence number is not to wrap) or premature aging of its LSA.(when sequence number is to wrap) does not work for unplanned restart. thanks,Peter Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem发送时间: 2024年7月9日 3:58收件人: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>抄送: lsr <lsr@ietf.org> lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> shraddha <shrad...@juniper.net>主题: [Lsr] Re: IETF 120 LSR Slot Requests Speaking as WG member: I would like a 10 minute slot to present an update to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-lsr-ospf-better-idbx/ Thanks, Acee On Jun 25, 2024, at 14:19, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, The draft agenda for IETF 120 has been posted: IETF 120 Meeting Agenda The LSR session is scheduled on Friday Session I1 9:30 - 11:30, July 26, 2024. Please send slot requests to lsr-cha...@ietf.org before the end of the day Wednesday July 10th. Please include draft name and link, presenter, desired slot length including Q&A. Please note that having a discussion on the LSR mailing list is a prerequisite for a draft presentation in the WG session. If you need any help please reach out to the chairs. Thanks, Yingzhen
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
