IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood-00.txt

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 01 April 2019 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
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 B41831200E3 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=gH5Aip1y; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=DoaZWeZt
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 cZE7avp28ODt for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 976A212006A for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3326; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554117721; x=1555327321; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4dI0M93gPw8VDiwzzFmPrQSTb7n5C0ZUFTZSbptGAxk=; b=gH5Aip1yzagE7GMDRXZBTNeJH6TuJJJdSzz5zNb8Oxm7HReK12HebZwQ qg4SL5CpQ7FWyPyTjjqd2PV8OzRm6TyPU384kLOqPVgHf2jMitnV1kHRx 7EEPZ5vrDlH2Z3fA7D6019zba1tm3xZau/ArPpIiVEqa3jfW4DnYzg7Vk M=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:brdfLh2EecaaPTWzsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxGCt+51ggrPWoPWo7JfhuzavrqoeFRI4I3J8TgZdYBUERoMiMEYhQslVceOBEDTJ//xZCt8F8NHBxdo
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AnAADg86Fc/4UNJK1jHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUQcBAQsBgT1QA2h0BAsnhA6DRwOEUopgSoINiTiNV4EuFIEQA1QOAQEYCwmEQAIXhSwiNAkNAQEDAQEJAQMCbRwMhUsBAQECAQEBIREMAQEsCQMPAgEGAhoCJgICAh8GCxUQAgQBEoMiAYFdAw0IAQ6OE5BeAooUcYEvgnkBAQWEeQ0LggwDBYELJAGLMheBf4E4H4JMPoIaRwEBgUmDIjGCJop8ggeLQB+MNTYJApAeg0AaggOJYYFVhnOLP4dNiSw0giECBAIEBQIOAQEFgU04gVZwFTsqAYJBggqDboUUhT9ygSiPMwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,296,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="541987181"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 Apr 2019 11:22:00 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (xch-aln-006.cisco.com [173.36.7.16]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x31BM0Ie010619 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:22:00 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (173.36.7.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 06:21:59 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 07:21:58 -0400
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 06:21:58 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=4dI0M93gPw8VDiwzzFmPrQSTb7n5C0ZUFTZSbptGAxk=; b=DoaZWeZtYs3nWyvawqRztvwWH4FWcBaY9pdJQVBGMj/rg76c+NPb7BaZpH92a2ONdWjHGLJhZ7H5uf6n57XTL+Tet//KGQzVuk6ryO5ujDBMDplxttELz7b4xibj7EwueMyh1ssDDJruXAHjzK1DH0s0t3nv+OTP619fasf5JQI=
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.112.11) by BN6PR1101MB2353.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.173.200.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.20; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:21:57 +0000
Received: from BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9c05:e282:840b:51a1]) by BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9c05:e282:840b:51a1%8]) with mapi id 15.20.1750.017; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:21:57 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "7riw77@gmail.com" <7riw77@gmail.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQLwM/JIkPbzT8Vkdbi80JHv2Wjy+aPvl4FQgAA2U4CAABvKAIAAY84AgAApq4D//9gvgA==
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 11:21:57 +0000
Message-ID: <B19B81F2-F36B-418F-90A3-3FFDF422DB35@cisco.com>
References: <155406381670.12357.17272312414769230549.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <04bf01d4e7ff$e16d7230$a4485690$@gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB3638929C928DC680677E182DC1540@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <073101d4e828$c2209c80$4661d580$@gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB363894C676CF19DB5DE35291C1550@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <004601d4e86f$7e744530$7b5ccf90$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <004601d4e86f$7e744530$7b5ccf90$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2606:a000:111b:8070:f9e7:fc27:8c02:90db]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 354c18c3-23f5-4e0a-4665-08d6b69440af
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2353;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR1101MB2353:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR1101MB2353F613B6864F9D9A515F81C2550@BN6PR1101MB2353.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0994F5E0C5
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(85664002)(189003)(199004)(82746002)(11346002)(486006)(6436002)(446003)(102836004)(93886005)(105586002)(316002)(5660300002)(71190400001)(8676002)(229853002)(478600001)(6116002)(53936002)(46003)(71200400001)(2501003)(6486002)(81166006)(106356001)(256004)(86362001)(81156014)(110136005)(36756003)(83716004)(6246003)(966005)(76176011)(2906002)(14454004)(33656002)(6512007)(6306002)(99286004)(25786009)(7736002)(186003)(305945005)(68736007)(8936002)(2616005)(476003)(6506007)(97736004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR1101MB2353; H:BN6PR1101MB2226.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ioE5iOq8lQtElGYm4LM9b8ybYCsi7aeCyct6/Lx9e8/eb1dw2r3HBxQuFqwHXiEGn24kx0S6FsB6Qa2FrO6o2TQpC4yssPKscc8IzIDWkErrMUq/nJGrSJBninK88oELLQMwdLMAKn1AX7dgh/UsxqQUM7AEfbShry5jzpKdYQB5JytL3MJndbv4F3RGvsvDHD98IpfrMonuF3b8fl+s0sLih5ZhTXNIqKdAnXDrIy7cYTloRMNFdpLbniz9cLGG2cHqcPUejMuQM7HYmR4OhU9oQ2DUiN9rAKIT5rNq+WIKzmqHmT2VhnQHIiNhr5Hr2b6FVle1SXXnjtLdLmZqCYNBOnm60DiIobHTum7Y7EX+wRoJXAY6FPmsHJbA6fEmmKknKZvSOPfQsm6t0uQzcJYt0DnbV+Iu3a9YrfErTjI=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4C70C6D853C9F8478F1AB11C6FC295EA@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 354c18c3-23f5-4e0a-4665-08d6b69440af
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Apr 2019 11:21:57.3885 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1101MB2353
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.16, xch-aln-006.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/jZpd2gZkAYDP8_gvtNiEHz_eBrY>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood-00.txt
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 11:22:04 -0000

Hi Russ, 

I won't have time to read your new version this week but you should align your distributed algorithm with  the WG flooding infra-structure draft. Anything that doesn't fit should remain in the OpenFrabric experimental draft. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 4/1/19, 5:45 AM, "Lsr on behalf of 7riw77@gmail.com" <lsr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of 7riw77@gmail.com> wrote:

    
    > 1)Section 3 defines an algorithm which is used to "calculate" the flooding
    > topology. As such, this draft is not an alternative to draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
    > flooding.  It is simply one of potentially many drafts which may be written
    > which will define such an algorithm, Note that definition of algorithms is
    > outside the scope of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding.
    
    Correct. This was my initial impression when I read draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding.
    
    > I think this should be made clear in your draft.
    
    Sure -- I can add this bit.
    
    > 2)The use of Circuit Scoped LSPs (RFC 7356) to flood standard L1/L2 LSPs to
    > "DNR" nodes as defined in Section 3.1 of the draft is an invalid usage of CS-
    > LSPs. The content of CS-LSPs is NOT identical to standard LSPs and the 1:1
    > equivalence you seem to require is inconsistent with RFC 7356.
    
    Hm... I will need to look at this -- it might be worth chatting about this off line to see how to bring this in line. 
    
    > 3)The adjacency formation logic discussed in Section 2 isn’t directly relevant
    > to calculating a flooding topology. There are existing implementations which
    > use the techniques you define as a means of reducing redundant flooding
    > associated with adjacency bringup when there are parallel links between two
    > nodes. Note this can be (and is) done without  requiring protocol
    > extensions/specification i.e., a node can do this today without introducing
    > any interoperability issues. So while this is definitely a good idea, it isn’t
    > directly related to the work on flooding topologies and I think is better
    > removed from the draft.
    
    Okay -- it seems like this technique is not documented anyplace, and could be used for all adjacencies.
    
    😊 /r
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    Lsr@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email