Re: [Lsr] Option B from "Migration between normal flooding and flooding reduction"

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sun, 26 May 2019 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA8F12008B for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 May 2019 16:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 NeZfj8f5UvwF for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 May 2019 16:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9984B1201D2 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 May 2019 16:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id p18so15301386qkk.0 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 May 2019 16:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0sY/JS4h7YGhdjzoDcE3jNFH9qW55CiVUR2k70Vt4Ms=; b=Czw8TD7I8bxP98rOixBtEGHMi55x69+p5uiCXNmY5qXzCU2+6GKJMRLkZINPCFiQ5L tjaFTEvZBkywWDwbuqavbe6xLzzzkLUlz7mcOTZ5pZOQvOzMxvZfl9Hx35dMMD0toqRy 93xIXKSJnDOmt5TzULMYzJM+5XKnxSv/TFyAQ1butU2Yydn5M42AmF3XvwJQlZ5bGG1V GVqcBuTBq6rS5RK9eoOP9+UM9Rjgn4kuyDhgYI69ec1E/9N2rTY1y6CFvdAxfuFGNpgM wA68cfqzVeufAcb682EcB8wohPvTAI4fCbOycJlHfaJexvtRAQn7SLENii7344SYmk68 zSVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0sY/JS4h7YGhdjzoDcE3jNFH9qW55CiVUR2k70Vt4Ms=; b=OLgU0eT/OC/JMpknghWNQKmGQLJ45jqGm2H7wd+wzInpThci83rKyqq3CzGp7Woj7k EPzlpm0IJK56M9/VRf0bj3HyKbNZwFG76unK1QNol8JCkvyoLLUnyTvz2Lh2qvWWKPL0 vC9trSI/eqaAFNpLLJGnKR29zmCfSDxOOBsSJ9CjUkbMxqNZQSWHYHZY6Vkiz/pXGtHj N4skMWnNJispr+MH/g3UVNVEEyQJt3WloDxbJ3Er7zj4M9OQam5wPS4DpM2ynTZhDZg0 C5Xf+4JSORCQ9nUrmyJy8B3s/6rpUUdW55Ltg8zXLfP/VuVPIfkDX0Gz9+5KnsH0dqVG dvQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUbQWRnj/o9J059T6bDrrD1fPJzyVP9//oZR+z5ed3107R6W9t3 0HahrvzJy9DIdw6UAXOJey4VU/GSZb1g77A+W71LgjG5uNY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzfpgUb825m6dAQDi+Ty0c12uQdQG6OHop7B/p0+7fFIQxoA+xVwD5u9CS8y+hDt1P8BniXZ4If2ExpLTdeSkQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4bc3:: with SMTP id y186mr311164qka.233.1558912267376; Sun, 26 May 2019 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D463BBD21B@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CF5E5FE7-C2E2-4200-AE8A-6BF5E558258C@tony.li> <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D463BC58F5@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR11MB3638190EC8AD3235AB2304E7C1060@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D463BC5C32@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR11MB3638722A90E40777657001B8C1000@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMEijyB7qd4oUaOe7W19j+76CjH+mzJ3mvcVtOjn5fvmdw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB363863B393A181264E07B042C1000@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR13MB3470B24A328311A23BAAC5B8A3000@MN2PR13MB3470.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR13MB34701B410A172A950BAE6B5EA31C0@MN2PR13MB3470.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <FB4EDF4B-C94D-4654-8D3A-A1567E0D76B1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FB4EDF4B-C94D-4654-8D3A-A1567E0D76B1@gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 01:10:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGDodnxktZCuqPfVDCRbu0+yUR--DiZKTqVQ=4thAM5rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eeef8e0589d28b13"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/iSlRZ4KF7583rdSvIqFrIgM6dVY>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Option B from "Migration between normal flooding and flooding reduction"
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 23:11:15 -0000

Hi Tony,

The current draft is pretty robust in terms of area leader election. It
also says that  "Any node that is capable MAY advertise its eligibility to
become Area Leader"

With that can you confirm the procedure to "resign" as area leader ?
Especially that under those circumstances just having active area leader to
resign clearly is not enough to change given flooding scheme.

In some deployments all eligible nodes may advertise such capability which
in turn the "resign" procedure would require NMS action to disable such
capability by configuration and re-flooding it. Not that I am advocating it
nor see need for complex migration procedures, but just would like to
better understand the "resign" part.

Thx,
R.



On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:15 PM Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Huaimo,
>
> None of this is necessary.
>
> If we’re in legacy flooding and want to use centralized mode, the area
> leader simply advertises that.  No additions are necessary.
>
> If we’re in legacy flooding and want to use distributed mode, the area
> leader simply advertises that and the algorithm to use.  No additions are
> necessary.
>
> If we’re in centralized mode and the area leader elects to use distributed
> mode, then it need only change to advertise the algorithm in use.  No
> additions are necessary.
>
> If we’re in distributed mode and the area leader elects to use centralized
> mode, then it need only change to advertise centralized mode. No additions
> are necessary.
>
> If we’re in centralized mode and the area leader decides to transition to
> legacy flooding, then it can simply resign as area leader. No additions are
> necessary.
>
> If we’re in distributed mode and the area leader decides to transition to
> legacy flooding, then it can also simply resign as area leader. No
> additions are necessary.
>
> In short, no additions are necessary.
>
> Tony
>
>
> On May 26, 2019, at 1:01 PM, Huaimo Chen <hchen@futurewei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Les,
>
>
>     Option B is about the transfer between flooding reduction (either
> centralized mode or distributed mode) and normal flooding. It is from the
> procedure in thread “Migration between normal flooding and flooding
> reduction”, and described below in some details, including behavior and
> extension. In the case that the formats below are messed up, a .pdf file is
> attached.
>
>     Note that the transfer between centralized mode and distributed mode
> is in draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding and Option B can be considered as an
> extension to it (refer to the Figure below).
>      /-----------------------------------------------------------\
>      | Flooding Reduction                                        |
>      |                                                           |
>      |            “(Transfer to) Centralized Mode”               |
>      |                              |                            |
>      |   /------------------\       V      /------------------\  |
>      |   | Centralized Mode | ----------à | Distributed Mode |  |
>      |   |                  | ß---------- |                  |  |
>      |   \------------------/       ^      \------------------/  |
>      |                              |                            |
>      |           “(Transfer to) Distributed Mode”                |
>      |                                                           |
>      \-----------------------------------------------------------/
>                            |             ^
>         “(Transfer to)     |             | “(Transfer to)
>         Normal Flooding”   |             | Flooding Reduction”
>                            V             |
>      /-----------------------------------------------------------\
>      | Normal Flooding                                           |
>      |                                                           |
>      \-----------------------------------------------------------/
>
>  Figure 1. Transfer between Flooding Reduction and Normal Flooding
>
>     When the IGP in an area runs in the flooding reduction (either
> centralized mode or distributed mode), the behavior to transfer from the
> flooding reduction to the normal flooding is as follows:
>
>    1. on the leader node, “(Transfer to) Normal Flooding” is configured;
>    2. the leader advertises “(Transfer to) Normal Flooding” to all the
>    other nodes;
>    3. every node transfers to the normal flooding after obtaining the
>    instruction for transferring to the normal flooding. Every node will floods
>    link states using all its local links instead of the local links on the
>    flooding topology (FT for short).
>
>    For the centralized mode, after transferring to normal flooding, the
>    leader of the area stops computing and advertising the FT, each of the
>    other nodes stops receiving and building the FT.
>
>    For the distributed mode, every node in the area stops computing and
>    building the FT.
>
> At this point, the IGP in the area has transferred to the normal flooding
> from the flooding reduction (either centralized mode or distributed mode).
>
>     When the IGP in the area runs in the normal flooding, the behavior to
> transfer from the normal flooding to the flooding reduction (either
> centralized mode or distributed mode) is as follows. It is almost the same
> as that described in draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding, but with minor
> enhancement in blue color.
>
>     For centralized mode (i.e., when centralized mode is configured),
>
>    1. the leader advertises “Flooding Reduction” in the centralized mode
>    to all the other nodes;
>    2. the leader computes the FT and advertises the FT to the other nodes;
>    3. each node floods the link states using the FT after it receives/has
>    the whole FT.
>
>
>     For distributed mode (i.e., when distributed mode is configured), an
> algorithm is also configured to be used by every node to compute FT
>
>    1. the leader advertises “Flooding Reduction” in the distributed mode
>    including the algorithm to all the other nodes;
>    2. each node computes its FT and floods the link states using the FT.
>
>
>     At this point, the IGP in the area has transferred from the normal
> flooding to the flooding reduction (either centralized mode or distributed
> mode).
>
>     To support the above behaviors, Area Leader Sub-TLV needs to be
> extended. Three bits of one octet may be used to indicate a flooding mode
> (FM) such as “Normal Flooding” or "Flooding Reduction". The other bits are
> reserved. The values proposed for FM are as follows:
>
> 1 for “Flooding Reduction” (centralized or distributed mode is
> implied/indicated by the algorithm)
>
> 2 for “Normal Flooding”
>
>
> For OSPF Area Leader Sub-TLV, the current Sub-TLV below
>
>    0                   1                   2                   3
>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |              Type             |             Length            |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |    Priority   |   Algorithm   |            Reserved           |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                   (Current) OSPF Area Leader Sub-TLV
> is extended to
>    0                   1                   2                   3
>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |              Type             |             Length            |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |    Priority   |   Algorithm   | FM  |      Reserved           |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                                                    (Extended) OSPF Area
> Leader Sub-TLV
>
>
> FM = 1:  Flooding Reduction
>               Alogrithm  =  0:  Centralized Mode; Algorithm = N (N>0):
> Distributed Mode.
> FM = 2: Normal Flooding
>
> Similarly for IS-IS Area Leader Sub-TLV, the current Sub-TLV below,
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |     Type      |     Length    | Priority      |   Algorithm   |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                    (Current) IS-IS Area Leader Sub-TLV
> is extended to
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |     Type      |     Length    | Priority      |   Algorithm   |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      | FM  |Reserved |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                    (Extended) IS-IS Area Leader Sub-TLV
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Huaimo Chen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2019 12:17 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Robert Raszuk
> *Cc:* Huaimo Chen; Tony Li; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Migration between normal flooding and flooding
> reduction
>
> Hi Les,
>
>     The procedure in the thread is more comprehensive somehow, which
> includes
>     Option B,
>     the step related to the leader election, which is optional. I put a
> note in that step,
>     and so on. It seems better to split it into two or more different
> topics.
>
>
>     The description and extension for supporting Option B is described in
> the procedure.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019, 05:46 Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Huaimo –
>
>
> The thread started with you defining multi-step processes for electing an
> area leader and enabling/disabling dynamic flooding – each of which
> involved multiple state changes on each node in the network. (Please scroll
> to the bottom to see your original post.)
>
>
> Both Tony and I responded by saying “no need for that”. Election of an
> Area Leader proceeds just like election of DIS on a LAN in IS-IS – totally
> event driven.
> Enabling/disabling of dynamic flooding happens based on what algorithm the
> Area Leader advertises and whether (in centralized mode) the Flooding
> Topology is advertised.
>
>
> Sections 6.4, 6.5, and 6.7 describe this.
>
>
> In response to my comment you have now changed the topic to discussing
> whether a config change is required on every node in order to
> enable/disable dynamic flooding.
> Different topic. It’s a bit hard to keep the thread focused when you
> change the topic.
> In brief, I do not see a problem supporting your “Option B” below – and
> the draft provides for that. We may want to make the wording more precise –
> I am certainly open to that – but the capability is already there.
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2019 3:13 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; tony.li@tony.li
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Lsr] Migration between normal flooding and flooding
> reduction
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
>
>     Consider the following options to transfer all nodes in an area from
> flooding reduction to normal flooding or from normal flooding to flooding
> reduction:
> Option A: Go to all the nodes (if there are thousands of nodes, go to all
> of them), execute “disable flooding reduction” or “enable flooding
> reduction” on all of them.
> Option B: Go to the leader (even if there are thousands of nodes, just go
> to the leader), execute “roll back to normal flooding” or “transfer to
> flooding reduction” on the leader.
>
>
> Option B should be supported. Option B provides a simpler and quicker way
> to transfer between flooding reduction and normal flooding.
>
>
> It seems that Option A is similar to going to all the nodes and
> configuring an algorithm to compute the FT for distributed mode; and Option
> B is similar to going to the leader and configuring an algorithm to compute
> the FT for distributed mode, which is used in
> draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> *From:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com
> <ginsberg@cisco.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2019 4:39 PM
> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com>om>; tony.li@tony.li
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Lsr] Migration between normal flooding and flooding
> reduction
>
>
> Huaimo –
>
>
> I, like Tony, am wondering what problem you are trying to solve.
>
>
> Note that updated LSPs/LSAs which are received on an interface which the
> receiving node believes is NOT part of the flooding topology are NEVER
> discarded. They are processed and flooded on those interfaces which the
> receiver believes are part of the flooding topology.  So there is no need
> for the coordination you propose. The network can transition from no
> flooding optimizations to flooding optimizations – or vice versa – simply
> by enabling/disabling optimizations.
>
>
> The speed at which the migration occurs is not critical. What is critical
> is that correct flooding is not compromised during the migration and (as
> Tony has noted) based on testing that works without any issues.
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Huaimo Chen
> *Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2019 12:53 PM
> *To:* tony.li@tony.li
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Migration between normal flooding and flooding
> reduction
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
>
>     For the case that the IGP running in an area has been doing the
> flooding reduction, in order to let the IGP on every node in the area roll
> back to the normal flooding quickly and easily, a procedure for migrating
> from the flooding reduction to normal flooding is needed. After back to
> normal flooding, if we want to let the IGP on every node do flooding
> reduction some time later, the procedure should be able to migrate from
> normal flooding to the flooding reduction quickly and easily.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> *From:* Tony Li [mailto:tony1athome@gmail.com <tony1athome@gmail.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *tony.li@tony.li
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 18, 2019 1:17 PM
> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Migration between normal flooding and flooding
> reduction
>
>
>
>
> Hi Huaimo,
>
>
> Before we get into your procedure, I have to ask an important question:
> why is any process necessary?
>
>
> In our experience, It Just Works.
>
>
> You turn on dynamic flooding and the nodes with the feature start
> complying with the flooding topology.  Those that are not enabled perform
> legacy flooding. Obviously you don’t get the flooding reduction yet, but it
> grows incrementally as nodes are enabled.
>
>
> What problem are you solving?
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
>
> Two possible procedures (Procedure A and B) for the migration are listed
> below for discussions.
>
>
> In the beginning, the IGP running in a network area does the normal
> flooding. The migration from the normal flooding to the flooding reduction
> (either centralized mode or distributed mode) or in reverse (i.e., roll
> back from the flooding reduction to the normal flooding) may follow a
> procedure of a few steps. One of the two procedures below may be used.
>
>
> Procedure A:
>
>
> 1.       For each node that is eligible to become a leader for flooding
> reduction in centralized mode, a priority for the leader election is
> configured on the node. (This step is called “Priority Configuration”).
> 2.       Every node advertises its priority for the leader election and
> the algorithms that it supports for computing flooding topology for
> distributed mode. (This step is called “Priority and Algorithms
> Distribution”). Note that this step and the step above may be considered as
> one step. After a priority is configured on a node, the node will
> advertises its priority and algorithms.
> 3.       On the node that will be elected as the leader, “Start Leader
> Election” is configured. The node does the leader election after obtaining
> “Start Leader Election”. It also advertises this to all the other nodes in
> the area. Each of them will do the leader election after receiving this.
> (This step is called “Leader Election”). Note that this step may be
> removed. Without this step, the leader election may occur multiple times
> until the leader with the highest priority and highest node ID is elected
> if we want that the leader is the node that has the highest priority and
> highest node ID in the area.
> 4.       On the node that is elected as the leader, centralized mode or
> distributed mode is configured. (This step is called “Flooding Reduction
> Mode Configuration”).
> For centralized mode (i.e., when centralized mode is configured),
> 1)      the leader advertises “Flooding Reduction” in the centralized
> mode to all the other nodes;
> 2)      the leader computes the flooding topology and advertises the
> flooding topology to the other nodes;
> 3)      each node floods the link states using the flooding topology
> after it receives/has the whole flooding topology.
> For distributed mode (i.e., when distributed mode is configured), an
> algorithm is also configured to be used by every node to compute flooding
> topology
> 1)      the leader advertises “Flooding Reduction” in the distributed
> mode including the algorithm to all the other nodes;
> 2)      each node computes its flooding topology and floods the link
> states using the flooding topology.
> At this point, the IGP running in the network area has migrated from the
> normal flooding to the flooding reduction (either centralized mode or
> distributed mode).
>
>
> In centralized mode, configuring distributed mode (or changing the
> centralized mode to distributed mode through configuration) will transfer
> from centralized mode to distributed mode. In addition to step 1) and 2)
> above for the distributed mode, each node uses the centralized flooding
> reduction (i.e., floods the link states over its local links on the
> flooding topology computed by the leader of the area) until the distributed
> flooding reduction is fully functional for a given time such as 5 seconds.
> After this time, the node stops its centralized flooding reduction. The
> leader stops computing the flooding topology, advertising it to all the
> other routers, and using this flooding topology to flood the link states.
> Each of the other nodes stops receiving and building the flooding topology
> computed by the leader.
>
>
>
> In distributed mode, configuring centralized mode (or changing the
> distributed mode to centralized mode through configuration) will transfer
> from distributed mode to centralized mode. In addition to step 1), 2) and
> 3) above for the centralized mode, each node uses the distributed flooding
> reduction (i.e., floods the link states over its local links on the
> flooding topology computed and built by itself) until the centralized
> flooding reduction is fully functional for a given time such as 5 seconds.
> For the migration (or say roll back) from the flooding reduction to the
> normal flooding,
> a.       on the leader node, “Roll Back to Normal Flooding” is
> configured; (This step is called “Roll Back to Normal Flooding
> Configuration”).
> b.       the leader advertises “Roll Back to Normal Flooding” to all the
> other nodes; (This step is called “Roll Back to Normal Flooding
> Distribution”).
> c.       every node rolls back to the normal flooding after obtaining the
> instruction for rolling back to the normal flooding. Every node will floods
> link states using all its local links instead of the local links on the
> flooding topology. (This step is called “Stop Using Flooding Topology”).
> For the centralized mode, after rolling back to normal flooding, the
> leader of the area stops computing and advertising the flooding topology,
> each of the other nodes stops receiving and building the flooding topology.
> For the distributed mode, every node in the area stops computing and
> building the flooding topology.
>
>
> At this point, the IGP running in the network area has rolled back to the
> normal flooding from the flooding reduction (either centralized mode or
> distributed mode).
>
>
> After this point, if there is a need to migrate from the normal flooding
> to the flooding reduction, then go to step 4 (i.e., “Flooding Reduction
> Mode Configuration”) above.
>
>
> One octet needs to be added into IS-IS and OSPF Area Leader Sub-TLV. Three
> bits of this octet are used to indicate an operation (OP) such as “Roll
> Back to Normal Flooding”. The other five bits are reserved. The values
> proposed for OP are as follows:
> 1 for “Flooding Reduction” (mode is implied/indicated by the algorithm)
> 2 for “Roll Back to Normal Flooding”
> 3 for “Start Leader Election” (This is not needed if step 3 above is
> removed).
>
>
> 4 for “Start Priority and Algorithms Distribution” if Procedure B below is
> used.
>
>
> In Procedure A, after rolling back to normal flooding, the information
> about the priority and algorithms in the LSA/LSP originated by each node is
> still in the network. If we want to remove this information from the
> network after rolling back to normal flooding, Procedure B below achieves
> this. It is derived from Procedure A through some changes which are in blue
> color.
>
>
> Procedure B:
> 1.       For each node that is eligible to become a leader for flooding
> reduction in centralized mode, a priority for the leader election is
> configured on the node. (This step is called “Priority Configuration”).
> 2.       “Start Priority and Algorithms Distribution” is configured on
> the node that will be elected as the leader after all the nodes that are
> eligible for a leader are configured with their priorities. The node
> advertises “Start Priority and Algorithms Distribution” to all the other
> nodes in the area; every node advertises its priority and algorithms after
> obtaining “Start Priority and Algorithms Distribution”. (This step is
> called “Start Priority and Algorithms Distribution”).
> 3.       On the node that will be elected as the leader, “start leader
> election” is configured. The node does the leader election after obtaining
> “start leader election”. It also advertises this to all the other nodes in
> the area. Each of them will do the leader election after receiving this.
> (This step is called “Leader Election”).
> 4.       On the node that is elected as the leader, centralized mode or
> distributed mode is configured. (This step is called “Flooding Reduction
> Mode Configuration”).
> For centralized mode,
> 1)      the leader advertises the centralized mode to all the other nodes;
> 2)      the leader computes the flooding topology and advertises the
> flooding topology to the other nodes;
> 3)      each node floods the link states using the flooding topology
> after it receives/has the whole flooding topology.
> For distributed mode, an algorithm is configured to be used by every node
> to compute flooding topology
> 1)      the leader advertises the distributed mode including the
> algorithm to all the other nodes;
> 2)      each node computes its flooding topology and floods the link
> states using the flooding topology.
> At this point, the IGP running in the network area has migrated from the
> normal flooding to the flooding reduction (either centralized mode or
> distributed mode).
>
>
> In centralized mode, configuring distributed mode (or changing the
> centralized mode to distributed mode through configuration) will transfer
> from centralized mode to distributed mode. In addition to step 1) and 2)
> above for the distributed mode, each node uses the centralized flooding
> reduction (i.e., floods the link states over its local links on the
> flooding topology computed by the leader of the area) until the distributed
> flooding reduction is fully functional for a given time such as 5 seconds.
> After this time, the node stops its centralized flooding reduction. The
> leader stops computing the flooding topology, advertising it to all the
> other routers, and using this flooding topology to flood the link states.
> Each of the other nodes stops receiving and building the flooding topology
> computed by the leader.
>
>
> In distributed mode, configuring centralized mode (or changing the
> distributed mode to centralized mode through configuration) will transfer
> from distributed mode to centralized mode. In addition to step 1), 2) and
> 3) above for the centralized mode, each node uses the distributed flooding
> reduction (i.e., floods the link states over its local links on the
> flooding topology computed and built by itself) until the centralized
> flooding reduction is fully functional for a given time such as 5 seconds.
>
> For migration (or say roll back) from the flooding reduction to the normal
> flooding,
> a.       on the leader node, “Roll Back to Normal Flooding” is
> configured; (This step is called “Roll Back to Normal Flooding
> Configuration”).
> b.       the leader advertises “Roll Back to Normal Flooding” to all the
> other nodes; (This step is called “Roll Back to Normal Flooding
> Distribution”).
> c.       every node rolls back to the normal flooding after obtaining the
> instruction for rolling back to the normal flooding. Every node will floods
> link states using all its local links instead of the local links on the
> flooding topology. (This step is called “Stop Using Flooding Topology”).
> d.       every node removes the information about its priority and
> algorithms in the LSA/LSP that it originated. (This step is called “Remove
> Priority and Algorithms”).
> For the centralized mode, after rolling back to normal flooding, the
> leader of the area stops computing and advertising a flooding topology, the
> other nodes stops receiving and building the flooding topology.
> For the distributed mode, every node in the area stops computing and
> building flooding topology.
>
>
> At this point, the IGP running in the network area has rolled back to the
> normal flooding from the flooding reduction (either centralized mode or
> distributed mode).
>
>
> After this point, if there is a need to migrate from the normal flooding
> to the flooding reduction, then go to step 2 (i.e., “Start Priority and
> Algorithms Distribution”) above.
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Huaimo
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7Chchen%40futurewei.com%7C9516e562de9147db7aa408d6debf4b91%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636941310531008373&sdata=LEDUOOD0k8clPsyyeJtsztZgnS8qqE6RSLiv%2FpN9fbg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7Chchen%40futurewei.com%7C9516e562de9147db7aa408d6debf4b91%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636941310531018378&sdata=3aquGnFwLMkd1ECf%2Fkqp5P7RV5TNa%2BmNgmBFOmwNuWw%3D&reserved=0>
>
> <Transfers-Normal-Reduction-2019-5-26.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>