Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Fri, 22 May 2020 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 C9EC83A0DDE for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 5kgr9xh1ZjAC for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (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 734053A0DD8 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id a14so9325571ilk.2 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=asAhmoFN7OaFmsNOwKl4QilPnRRKLR92N6jerE0QXNI=; b=i7mEIKlRbZMyXIMBv5idpWhW18WW7RXPwfer6rd9FwvS2FsPFYoRBLPTdQfOEkYot5 E4doPomVp/m/0t6JX4qG+9XehoDMTC6ZhJHR5T97YQ81KSVNk2Hu2u4l7ns4HM+HdvvE 8AXS7FHvh/E8rNrte1sCoGZzlNcjRt9wSz1Limr4sSaBd0QTBwBKj4XF7EDSreJYBsk+ u+JaO0gze60xkVx+P+E9P6QJ7CZIKWhNR/pJANqr/7Vi8JuYlgjvNM44SnqwoxWrH0gC 5AWOeYm2kiB+jdltFGMUskLjc20nOtgZ/+kE3BbEAqA8GH8O6SvUlE2SSbv4MrwdrZ5H uW3g==
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=asAhmoFN7OaFmsNOwKl4QilPnRRKLR92N6jerE0QXNI=; b=YsAI2UKtoqKzP0Q+T7NJaajBdJjsFMQeNkT8cSOaHToyOq2sFciemH/LtGCNEkcuBH in0YQ7jL7VZfAaQO5PEZ1V5c2Nz/r3FjhYYze5DfSHGsUlwSa+DAbXYHn3lVzKBg7Ghk 0OsLj6jKkoRHvsHC8bOoyYlyPLQav/7JHnkyxVEkG0h1Vw854uPM+qBfpF7YFjT6MW10 8DtSwNq/tgFCvVaX3CmStnYxnbf5zfHHPMmbqxP9vKXPLl03+wGj8/mXbViCtjRGxX9o T7WhjLcfXc2JRCVde+Jh9buu+QWD3kYVSe18BvxG97+aQEm92BslNT2G8Qiwjwow2oHf S4NA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533J/3TQU07q18c7t9YdT1EN2p8G7qaige32o7DSwlu/5tx/S0HT lhVt0b3U3hjiEjgs6hNg+9LfSM3kgdi4ES28Gyk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxoNojTxxkuJ+oij6b4aDCj57uxWSDcOLKnlXM8K89mHjWdLOtGjNUY7dfYvF3ZZYO7qTs191qpellWPePZxQY=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c948:: with SMTP id i8mr11642592ilq.258.1590114744517; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <63330FD6-EDE8-4938-AA85-948279C57E34@cisco.com> <DM6PR06MB509842BA0E42A4938ACB2B94EEB80@DM6PR06MB5098.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV3jQ=C6ynJBsKhJW_b=hkq7CKPFG2ci0vXE_0jZH9KtXQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR13MB3117C43CA052E4E29D7428CBF2B60@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV2Y3kemTdHYBamZwAB+m5DefxqTC0shPan2cGHd9TARTg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR13MB3117E84C778B11D71FAF8135F2B70@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV1W3EDJpqUjLGj3-E-8L1R=75oAgtHX==9qkfrvrZy2ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR13MB3117A5E68B341A203266C64AF2B70@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV3e_qm=RmTQyQ+yCWN+pt_d1Aw8-W9gkRwH+_kAyphu8Q@mail.gmail.com> <424B17B1-D66D-4708-A819-855E972841AF@cisco.com> <CABNhwV2cDoNotaePw30eZa5wE61NC_vh8cFaZHh_nPqs1ibFsg@mail.gmail.com> <E093695B-78DE-4332-B4E7-87343077624E@cisco.com> <CABNhwV1cfOE+trZGM-s44xU0su5RUgL2c7ubRCdc3EFCWsdujw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1cfOE+trZGM-s44xU0su5RUgL2c7ubRCdc3EFCWsdujw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 22:32:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV0kA5vXxFbwZ__MjDNYsymEfKawMR1qqXoKVr24mOGATw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007fca9505a63370d9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/wXzlCtdpHJ6K1LahJpLzQx_dy88>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
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: Fri, 22 May 2020 02:32:30 -0000

I see the diagrams Appendix A -  reviewing

Thanks

Gyan

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:13 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I think for both drafts it would be good to have a stick diagram at a
> minimum.
>
> I majored in EE with math  minor and both drafts are hard to follow
> without a diagram with labels showing the exact topology examples.
>
> Four main topologies - full mesh, partial mesh and leaf spine ( 2 tier)
> and CLOS ( 3 tier) - real world scenario’s.
>
> From the interim meeting was their a slide deck visual topology shared?
>
> That would help.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08
>
> 4.1
>
> Step 1 - Build Cq candidate queue
>
> For each node B on FT whose D is one (from minimum to maximum
>        node ID), find a link L attached to B such that L's remote node R
>        has minimum D and ID, add link L between B and R into FT and
>        increase B's D and R's D by one.  Return FT.
>
> My interpretation is the algorithm an iterative loop and starts with any
> node in the candidate list so could start from edge and work left to right
> or vice versa.  For loop to build FT from Cq = with each node B with
> directly attached node R via link L.  Increment node B from Cq until the FT
> is build for all nodes.  Instead of starting with a wide diameter FT
> matching physical topology we start micro topology with D=1 and go node by
> node.
>
> 4.2
>
> 1.  Finding and removing the first element with node A in Cq that is
>        not on FT and one PH's D in PHs < MaxD and PH's D < PH's ConMaxD.
>
>        If A is root R0, then add the element into FT
>
>        otherwise  (i.e., A != R0 with one PH's D in PHs < MaxD and PH's
>           D < PH's ConMaxD.  Assume that PH is the first one in PHs
>           whose D < MaxD and PH's D < PH's ConMaxD), PH's D++, and add A
>           with D = 1 and PHs = {PH} into FT.
>
>        Note:  if there is no element with a node in Cq satisfying the
>           conditions, then algorithm may be restarted from R0, ++MaxD,
>           Cq = {(R0,D=0,PHs = { })}, FT = { };
>
> This is similar to 4.1 with micro topology with 2 directly connected nodes
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chen-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm-00.html
>
> My interpretation of the algorithm from the verbiage.
>
> So this draft starts in the middle of the topology and is geared towards
> leaf spine 2 or 3 tier clos topology.
>
> For this one we build the bi graph so that could be leaf connected to two
> spines or spine connected to two leafs and iteratively build out the FT
> topology 3 node arch  spine leaf spine or leaf spine leaf.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Gyan
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:01 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 4:20 PM
>> *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
>> *Cc: *Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>om>, "lsr@ietf.org" <
>> lsr@ietf.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm -
>> draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes and I have started reviewing the LSR mail archives as I am late in
>> the discussion for this.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have link to any particular dates in the archives would be helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> No – it was more an “evolution” than an “epiphany”.
>>
>>
>>
>> That sums up all the questions I have so if all answered in the archives
>> then I am all set.
>>
>>
>>
>> I support the draft moving forward as flood reduction is a much needed
>> feature.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think overall both drafts will really help large data centers with any
>> overlay underlay vxlan spine leaf meshed CLOS highly meshed topology that
>> scales out horizontally with a large spine footprint - this is a much much
>> needed feature.  This also helps eliminate complexity of the workaround of
>> using BGP in the underlay which to me adds tremendous complexity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the other recently presented dynamic flooding draft.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm/
>>
>>
>>
>> You can see they both make use of the dynamic flooding infra in
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding/
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:07 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking as WG Co-chair:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess you’ve joined this discussion late. It might be a good idea to
>> review the LSR mailing list archives.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 1:51 PM
>> *To: *Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
>> *Cc: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>om>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm -
>> draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:01 AM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>>
>>
>>     Thanks much for your questions.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Gyan> How does this draft compare to the WG LC draft for flood
>> reduction.  Would they be two eventual standard options in the operators
>> toolbox  or competing features for optimized flood reduction. Would having
>> two flood reduction features standardized versus one default IGP flood
>> reduction feature be confusing for operators.  Just as it was confusing to
>> me.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding/
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327604003&sdata=TGrkecn6m9liviazX7qqPglGqYEWu5Ekg2FRIaDpBZ8%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>>     [HC]: This draft plus the draft for flooding reduction can provide
>> two modes of flooding reductions (i.e., centralized mode and distributed
>> mode). The latter describes the two modes, but does not include any
>> flooding topology computation algorithm for the distributed mode. The
>> former proposes a flooding topology computation algorithm to be used in
>> the distributed mode.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Gyan> It maybe a good idea for both documents to reference each other
>> as to how they play together or  in some respects if any provide a
>> homogeneous complete holistic solution for flooding problem being solved.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a good idea to have this new draft reference the dynamic-flooding
>> but not vice-versa. The existing dynamic flooding draft provides a
>> framework for any dynamic flooding algorithm that provides a separate
>> flooding topology. This algorithm is just the first to be formally proposed
>> in a draft. Note that another algorithm was presented during the LSR
>> virtual interim which replaced IETF 107.
>>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion it may not be a bad idea even to combine both drafts so the
>> solution is complete and holistic.  This will also make the overall
>> specification flow nicely.
>>
>>
>>
>> No – we’re not going to do this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Acee
>>
>>
>>
>> I know that efforts were made by LSR to have a common IGP solution,
>> however there are many inherent differences between ISIS and OSPF that from
>> IGP Link state protocol perspective you can treat like apples to apples but
>> really it’s apples and oranges.  Maybe it might we wise to have separate
>> draft for both and have references linking together as the same algorithm
>> concept and mathematically however the actual code implementation would
>> vary as the LSDB link state data structures are completely different.
>>
>>
>>
>> Later = Dynamic flooding = 2 modes Centralized leader based and
>> distributed
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding/
>>
>>
>>
>> This later draft per section excerpt provides both centralized and
>> distributed algorithm see below
>>
>>
>>
>> *6.4 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-05#section-6.4>.  Area Leader Responsibilities*
>>
>>
>>
>>    If the Area Leader operates in centralized mode, it MUST advertise
>>
>>    algorithm 0 in its Area Leader Sub-TLV.  In order for Dynamic
>>
>>    Flooding to be enabled it also MUST compute and advertise a flooding
>>
>>    topology for the area.  The Area Leader may update the flooding
>>
>>    topology at any time, however, it should not destabilize the network
>>
>>    with undue or overly frequent topology changes.  If the Area Leader
>>
>>    operates in centralized mode and needs to advertise a new flooding
>>
>>    topology, it floods the new flooding topology on both the new and old
>>
>>    flooding topologies.
>>
>>
>>
>>    If the Area Leader operates in distributed mode, it MUST advertise a
>>
>>    non-zero algorithm in its Area Leader Sub-TLV.
>>
>>
>>
>>    When the Area Leader advertises algorithm 0 in its Area Leader Sub-
>>
>>    TLV and does not advertise a flooding topology, Dynamic Flooding is
>>
>>    disabled for the area.  Note this applies whether the Area Leader
>>
>>    intends to operate in centralized mode or in distributed mode.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Note that once Dynamic Flooding is enabled, disabling it risks
>>
>>    destabilizing the network.
>>
>>
>>
>> *6.5 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-05#section-6.5>.  Distributed Flooding Topology Calculation*
>>
>>
>>
>>    If the Area Leader advertises a non-zero algorithm in its Area Leader
>>
>>    Sub-TLV, all nodes in the area that support Dynamic Flooding and the
>>
>>    value of algorithm advertised by the Area Leader MUST compute the
>>
>>    flooding topology based on the Area Leader's advertised algorithm.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Nodes that do not support the value of algorithm advertised by the
>>
>>    Area Leader MUST continue to use standard flooding mechanism as
>>
>>    defined by the protocol.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Nodes that do not support the value of algorithm advertised by the
>>
>>    Area Leader MUST be considered as Dynamic Flooding incapable nodes by
>>
>>    the Area Leader.
>>
>>
>>
>>    If the value of the algorithm advertised by the Area Leader is from
>>
>>    the range 128-254 (private distributed algorithms), it is the responsibility of the
>>
>> network operator to guarantee that all nodes in the area have a common understanding of what the given algorithm value represents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Former = WG LC
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08
>>
>>
>>
>> Provides algorithm for distributed mode for this draft as well as the
>> algorithm to be used for distributed mode later dynamic flooding draft
>>
>>
>>
>> Separate question-
>>
>>
>>
>> In light of the flooding algorithm and seeing that at the bottom of
>> section 6.5 mentions flooding algorithm are the IANA codepoints reserved
>> for flooding unique and non overlapping with the flex algo codepoints I
>> believe 0-127.  I would think the flooding algorithm range of values is
>> completely separate since a different function then flex algo values.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-07
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Huaimo
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:36 AM
>>
>>
>> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
>> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; lsr@ietf.org
>> <lsr@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm -
>> draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:59 PM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>>
>>
>>     Thanks much for your questions. My answers are inline below with [HC].
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Huaimo
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:14 AM
>> *To:* Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
>> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; lsr@ietf.org
>> <lsr@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm -
>> draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
>>
>>
>>
>> Huaimo
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a much needed feature that operators have been needing for
>> densely meshed topologies that commonly exist in data centers to
>> accommodate very high bandwidth E-W traffic.
>>
>> [HC]: Thank you very much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Below is link from Cisco which has introduced feature for dynamic
>> flooding in clos high density ECMP data center topologies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please look at the feature description and it does seem to be exactly the
>> same as this draft.  Please confirm.
>>
>> [HC]: It seems different.
>>
>>
>>
>> There maybe other vendors due to industry demand have to get the feature
>> deployed before it reaches standards vendor consensus with the IETF.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/nexus-9000-series-switches/white-paper-c11-743015.html
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cisco.com%2Fc%2Fen%2Fus%2Fproducts%2Fcollateral%2Fswitches%2Fnexus-9000-series-switches%2Fwhite-paper-c11-743015.html&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327604003&sdata=CPEu2451qkfD9440Ihj1bKPWl%2BzH%2BiuYUwuWpfzR%2B0Q%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> We are testing this feature and planning to deploy but wanted to ensure
>> that this is the same as the draft on the standards track.
>>
>> [HC]: The feature appears implemented draft "Dynamic Flooding on Dense
>> Graphs", which does not include any flooding topology computation
>> algorithm..
>>
>>
>>
>>     Gyan> How does this draft compare to the WG LC draft for flood
>> reduction.  Would they be two eventual standard options in the operators
>> toolbox  or competing features for optimized flood reduction. Would having
>> two flood reduction features standardized versus one default IGP flood
>> reduction feature be confusing for operators.  Just as it was confusing to
>> me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding/
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327604003&sdata=TGrkecn6m9liviazX7qqPglGqYEWu5Ekg2FRIaDpBZ8%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:52 PM Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>>
>>
>>     Thank you very much for your questions and support.
>>
>>
>>
>>     This Flooding Topology Computation algorithm can be used in the
>> Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs to compute the flooding topologies for
>> the data center clos dense meshed topologies with many ECMP paths. It can
>> be used by the area leader in the centralized mode to compute the flooding
>> topology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Huaimo
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Gyan Mishra <
>> hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:39 AM
>> *To:* Yanhe Fan <yfan@casa-systems.com>
>> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
>> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm -
>> draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I support WG adoption and have a few questions related to the draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does this flooding algorithm use the dynamic flooding algorithm used in
>> data center clos dense meshed topologies with many ECMP paths where the
>> flood is decoupled from the physical topology.  In the dynamic flooding
>> algorithm mentioned in centralized mode the flooding is computed by the
>> area leader and distributed to all nodes.  In distributed mode each mode
>> the area leader determines the algorithm and then each node computes the
>> flooding topology based on the algorithm.
>>
>>
>>
>> This dynamic algorithm for optimized flood reduction would reduce the
>> amount of redundant flooding in highly densely meshed ospf or Isis
>> topologies.  So this optimization of flooding would improving overall link
>> state routing protocol convergence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:37 PM Yanhe Fan <yfan@casa-systems.com> wrote:
>>
>> Support it as a co-author.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Yanhe
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem (acee)
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 3:40 PM
>> *To:* lsr@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm -
>> draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
>>
>>
>>
>> This begins a 3 week (due to holidays) WG adoption call for the “Flooding
>> Topology Computation Algorithm” draft. Please issue your support or
>> objection to this list by 11:59 PM, UTC on June 5th, 2020. Here is a URL
>> for your convenience.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction/
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327614000&sdata=FkKUWXneiQIUtjkGB6RITfo0vAt2qhkwDWB%2BghP7%2FLg%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327623992&sdata=tyEhpdkwdbAVJqAlvbfzNxb7n1qLGrrEZ%2FBjEKa9rVs%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizon.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327633988&sdata=ii1nTDHCkuMU0AfaMkLjY6N2ww2STRdJBbhHozWSL9I%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> *Gyan
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101%0D%0A+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver%0D%0A+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>Mishra*
>>
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101%0D%0A+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver%0D%0A+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>*Network
>> Solutions Architect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fsearch%2F13101%2BColumbia%2BPike%2B%250D%250A%2BSilver%2BSpring%2C%2BMD%3Fentry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327653980&sdata=TYHrbd1wDXt4p2yDXi%2Fqm3XEmjK4V7zu3caXeNJFthU%3D&reserved=0>
>> *Silver Spring, MD
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fsearch%2F13101%2BColumbia%2BPike%2B%250D%250A%2BSilver%2BSpring%2C%2BMD%3Fentry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327663981&sdata=5b0tVVJLdEO9%2FuAksAsc0BAqy%2F%2F%2BE7EBPjRlkKvvOH4%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizon.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327673971&sdata=Bbk8qEHi1RU7J1x%2FNP11v8CYcnDLszZQiNRLmklSDOY%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions Architect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101%0D%0A+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver%0D%0A+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>13101
>> Columbia Pike
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fsearch%2F13101%2BColumbia%2BPike%2B%250D%250A%2BSilver%2BSpring%2C%2BMD%3Fentry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327683966&sdata=2sVGWVhM3Sbk84D2ZyaCYUGfp5wDLt8U8uLpgMJuwSU%3D&reserved=0>
>> *Silver Spring, MD
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fsearch%2F13101%2BColumbia%2BPike%2B%250D%250A%2BSilver%2BSpring%2C%2BMD%3Fentry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327693961&sdata=OQccpoFntfT0LMaEVNaWmGhkqFbTKJLWu4PIlTuKFoA%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizon.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C60df274544ba4b75447f08d7fd947201%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637256686327693961&sdata=zKzhCcHJbUpzdvulN4y1N92e6KJKAEqHvdF5KDKJKH8%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions Architect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> *Silver Spring, MD
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Error! Filename not specified.* <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions Architect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> *Silver Spring, MD
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions Architect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> *Silver Spring, MD
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+%0D%0A+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD