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

[[e-mail]]

> [Les:] Signaling is required in your solution to indicate whether the neighbor
> should/should not propagate the LSP(s) received from a given neighbor.
> But Circuit Scoped LSPs as defined in RFC 7356 do not provide this functionality.
> 
> A Circuit Scoped LSP is to be used to send information originated by a node to a
> specific neighbor of that node. This information has circuit scope - meaning it is
> NEVER meant to be flooded on other circuits.
> It is not an encapsulation mechanism to forward area/domain scoped LSPs
> originated by other nodes in the network.

I guess I'm not seeing the conflict here ... I'm okay with defining a new way to signal an LSP should not be reflooded, but it seems like re-using the existing mechanism is a better way to move forward.

> [Les:] I assume what you are referring to here is MANET and the Multipoint
> Relay (MPR) functionality.

No -- RFC5820, which was implemented by Cisco, and is widely deployed.

> [Les:] It does seem that you do NOT want to use dynamic flooding extensions.
> Which makes me wonder why you suggest (Section 3) the election of an Area
> Leader. What purpose does this serve in your solution?

When this draft was first proposed, I received several emails stating it MUST fit within the framework of the larger framework document, so I proposed a way to indicate this type of flooding reduction within that larger framework. There is no "leader" in this draft of any kind.

There seem to be two general criticisms here. The first is that it doesn't fit into the general pattern of "elect a leader of some kind." IMHO, this is not a bug but a feature. The method described in this draft has been proven to work--there are two implementations, both of which show large reductions in flooding. Further, the general concept has been proven to work in implementations deployed in the real world. I'm not entirely certain what to make of this criticism -- we aren't trying to replace the existing proposals, but rather provide a complimentary option. I don't see why it should be that every possible solution must elect a leader in some way to be valid or acceptable.

The second criticism seems to be that it doesn't use signaling correctly ... While I don't really understand this criticism, I think we can work together to resolve it.

😊 /r