[Isis-wg] 答复: Comments on draft-xu-isis-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-00

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Wed, 26 April 2017 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9F2127333 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NKYiROMVtw1w for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0C371270AC for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DLT30682; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:18:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:18:25 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.200]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:18:15 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, Erik Auerswald <auerswald@fg-networking.de>
CC: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Comments on draft-xu-isis-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-00
Thread-Index: AQHSuHnYzJsNpeyNDUGF7bgutVKvpaHVvfNQ//+nu4CAAPKMgIAAjJBA
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:18:15 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB9433B@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <20170418192723.GB17787@fg-networking.de> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE2BB93B83@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <20170425102617.GA22368@fg-networking.de> <44be93dd-92c4-e750-063a-b58867ec0dad@gredler.at>
In-Reply-To: <44be93dd-92c4-e750-063a-b58867ec0dad@gredler.at>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.184.181]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090206.58FFF563.0001, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.5.200, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 38c865b232d089c2c3ceca306718f9ef
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/u-HUcRQmNBpXuTQHPMeDdRJ7v9k>
Subject: [Isis-wg] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgQ29tbWVudHMgb24gZHJhZnQteHUtaXNp?= =?utf-8?q?s-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-00?=
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:18:31 -0000

Hi Hannes,

That's great! It would make the hybrid routing protocol (i.e., mix of centralized link-state dissemination and distributed SPF calculation) as described in this draft more deployable in MSDC networks.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Hannes Gredler [mailto:hannes@gredler.at]
> 发送时间: 2017年4月26日 8:54
> 收件人: Erik Auerswald; Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: isis-wg@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] Comments on draft-xu-isis-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-00
> 
> +1
> 
> i'd like to add to erik's observations that mesh-group support is available in
> contemporary router software since 15+ years
> 
> /hannes
> 
> On 4/25/17 12:26, Erik Auerswald wrote:
> > Hi Xiaohu,
> >
> > please see my response inline (content not relevant to this response
> > removed).
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 08:46:06AM +0000, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> >>> -----邮件原件-----
> >>> 发件人: Erik Auerswald [mailto:auerswald@fg-networking.de]
> >>> This idea can be realized using existing implementations, with
> >>> additional possible optimizations via IS-IS extensions. In fact I
> >>> built a lab today to play with the idea, using a couple of switches,
> >>> one of which was used as controller, and the others as fabric switches.
> >>
> >> It would be great if you could share more information about your
> >> experiment:)
> >
> > Nothing big, I just took four Extreme Networks X460[-G2] switches from
> > the company lab, connected three switches in a row to build the "fabric"
> > (you could think of the middle one as "spine" and the two at the ends
> > as "leafs"), and then connected the fourth switch to all three "fabric"
> > switches to act as "controller". I then configured IS-IS on the
> > switches, configured a high metric on the links to/from the
> > "controller" switch, and used the "meshBlocked" attribute from RFC
> > 2973 to restrict flooding inside the "fabric." To do this I configured
> > "meshBlocked" on all links between "fabric" switches.
> >
> > Show outputs for transmitted LSPs showed flooding reduction (e.g. when
> > adding a new loopback interface on a "leaf" switch), with full IP
> > connectivity over the fabric. The "management" links to the "controller"
> > were not used for "leaf" to "leaf" traffic due to the higher metric.
> >
> >>> RFC 2973, IS-IS Mesh Groups, can be used to prevent flooding on the
> >>> data path links.
> >>
> >> Could you explain more about how to apply the ISIS mesh group in the CLOS
> topology?
> >
> > Please see above. RFC 2973 describes a method to configure individual
> > links to inhibit flooding of LSPs using the "meshBlocked" attribute.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Erik
> >