Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com> Sat, 30 November 2019 03:54 UTC

Return-Path: <huzhibo@huawei.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 3F8E51200D6; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:54:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 XTfEz1VBxeUn; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1F3212009E; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3826A868FD02648EE5B5; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 03:54:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.213) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 03:54:10 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.145]) by DGGEMM405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.213]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Sat, 30 Nov 2019 11:54:07 +0800
From: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding@ietf.org>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "i-d-announce@ietf.org" <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHVpG5gFwfvUsjkqU6vwLnm9KH9LKejD3ng
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 03:54:06 +0000
Message-ID: <06CF729DA0D6854E8C1E5121AC3330DFAF48E222@dggemm509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <157478214322.13613.17606093146329682951@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <157478214322.13613.17606093146329682951@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.219.232]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/lzMrrAJcG5HLswBuLkPjmGD5ffw>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-04.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: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 03:54:17 -0000

Hi authors:

    Regarding this Draft, I have always had a question, how does dynamic flooding ensure the reliability of Flooding under multiple points of failure. Flooding depends on the consistent LSDB / Flooding SPF tree across the entire network, and the consistent LSDB on the entire network depends on Flooding. There will be different nodes with different LSDBs. In this case, how to ensure the reliability of Dynamic flooding? IETF 106 meeting says that products have been implemented for Dynamic Flooding. Has the reliability of Dynamic Flooding been tested in multi-point failure scenarios?

Thank you

Zhibo

-----Original Message-----
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 11:29 PM
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-04.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs
        Authors         : Tony Li
                          Peter Psenak
                          Les Ginsberg
                          Huaimo Chen
                          Tony Przygienda
                          Dave Cooper
                          Luay Jalil
                          Srinath Dontula
	Filename        : draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-04.txt
	Pages           : 47
	Date            : 2019-11-26

Abstract:
   Routing with link state protocols in dense network topologies can
   result in sub-optimal convergence times due to the overhead
   associated with flooding.  This can be addressed by decreasing the
   flooding topology so that it is less dense.

   This document discusses the problem in some depth and an
   architectural solution.  Specific protocol changes for IS-IS, OSPFv2,
   and OSPFv3 are described in this document.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-04


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr