Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 05 March 2019 21:10 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 0EC40130E62 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:10:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 QFQ6rHTZX52J for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:10:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAAE01288BD for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:10:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7694; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1551820217; x=1553029817; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9NdfxXl1G8TajDMkDLLOoXCX3A7b/fwbvDBaczXeIzo=; b=AB8JA0XAVJuanOiU6MtUJau+OWl58p7VkXnfdV/6YHs7WD0JDzJL7MrO 2HbR/WPSxzsZ4rv7siiM6+bLleo2+wRUAJbAJuiOaWsUL4/UmGWBLnFVb j2MaQnoHQdugphN2PhPpYIdG3XlG1MFUpm8I8S0pl9QpVPCnNQm/72ZvQ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AHAADJ5H5c/xbLJq1kGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwIBAQEBAQsBgWWBEoEDJ4QIiHmMeHyIMo5zgXsNGAuESQKETjYHDQEBAwEBAwEDAm0cDIVKAQEBAQIBAQEhDwEFNgsQCxgCAiMDAgIhBh8RBg0GAgEBF4MHAYFdAw0ID6skgS+FRIJBDYIZBYELJAGLPoFAP4ERJ4I2By6CV0cBAYE6AYMwglcCikKMeIwaMwmPN4M3BhmBdIVkgyKILZFvi0OBTgIvgVYzGggbFTuCbIMtAQyGBIFOhUA+AzCOSAElBIIjAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,445,1544486400"; d="scan'208";a="10506290"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2019 21:10:14 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.54] (ams-ppsenak-nitro5.cisco.com [10.60.140.54]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x25LADlc007131; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:10:14 GMT
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
References: <AAD29CF0-F0CA-4C3C-B73A-78CD2573C446@tony.li> <c1adac3a-cd4b-130e-d225-a5f40bf0ef55@cisco.com> <F3C4B9B2-F101-4E28-8928-9208D5EBAF99@tony.li> <be28dbcf-8382-329a-229f-5b146538fabe@cisco.com> <CA+wi2hPt-UrekyA9LpCWJHo9KyaOR1=eVQD29y54sciv3zh10A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMGPp=DffEw7vS4PH_vDtmYL5y2Xxgx2utNt4R6cxsCiwg@mail.gmail.com> <41bd7097-0d25-a2e0-843d-cb25fd13a84f@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMHmi-Ch43=YJ=LphPxiJmoHyg1fovqnT5iJxB6ASPfUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, lsr@ietf.org, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <f1888bd8-e54e-2a3b-57a4-a05c632c6c7e@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 22:10:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHmi-Ch43=YJ=LphPxiJmoHyg1fovqnT5iJxB6ASPfUXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.54, ams-ppsenak-nitro5.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/xaDETfzrcuDYz54DaYfHVHzIGSs>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding
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: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 21:10:20 -0000
Robert, On 05/03/2019 22:06 , Robert Raszuk wrote: > Peter, > >> you only have two paths to reach any node. > > Who says that you must be limited to two paths only ? > > Why not create a flooding graph such that flooding will happen over 4 > paths as opposed to flooding over 16 or 32 today without optimization. > > And if you are worried that you loose *wisely selected* all 4 paths > before you manage to distribute new flooding topology you can always > flood over 6 :) we want to limit the flooding to minimum, which is 2. thanks, Peter > > Best, > R. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 9:17 PM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com > <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Robert, > > On 05/03/2019 20:12 , Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > >> Slow convergence is obviously not a good thing > > > > Could you please kindly elaborate why ? > > > > With tons of ECMP in DCs or with number of mechanism for very fast > data > > plane repairs in WAN (well beyond FRR) IMHO any protocol *fast > > convergence* is no longer a necessity. Yet many folks still talk about > > it like the only possible rescue ... > > we are talking about the control plane convergence, not data plane one. > If the flooding topology is subset of the real topology, then at the > flooding level you don't have all the ECMPs available - you only have > two paths to reach any node. In such case it is possible that the > flooding topology gets partitioned and you want to get out of that > state > quickly, as you may get out of sync with the the reality and eventually > loose all the data plane ECMPs as a consequence. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:42 PM Tony Przygienda > <tonysietf@gmail.com <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com> > > <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > in practical terms +1 to Peter's take here ... Unless we're > talking > > tons of failures simultaneously (which AFAI talked to folks > are not > > that common but can sometimes happen in DCs BTW due to weird > things) > > smaller scale failures with few links would cause potentially > > diffused "chaining" of convergence behavior rather than IGP-style > > fast healing (and on top of that I didn't see a lot of interest in > > formalizing a rigorous distributed algorithm which IMO would be > > necessary to ensure ultimate convergence when only one/subset of > > links is used). Slow convergence is obviously not a good thing > > unless we assume people will run FRR with its complexity in DC > > and/or no more than one link every fails which seems to me bending > > assumptions to whatever solution is available/preferred. To Tony's > > point though, on large scale failures enabling all links would > cause > > heavy flood load, yes, but in a sense it's the "initial > bootup" case > > anyway (especially in centralized case) since nodes need all > > topology to make informed correct decisions about what the FT > should > > be if they don't rely on whatever the centralized instance thinks > > (which they won't be able to do given the FT from centralized > > instance will indicate lots links that are "gone" due to failure). > > As to p2p, I suggest to agree whether you use dense mesh (DC) case > > or sparse mesh (WAN) case or "every topology imaginable" since > that > > drives lots design trade-offs. > > > > my 2.71828182 cents ;-) > > > > --- tony > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:27 AM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com > <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com> > > <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>> wrote: > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > On 05/03/2019 17:16 , tony.li@tony.li > <mailto:tony.li@tony.li> <mailto:tony.li@tony.li > <mailto:tony.li@tony.li>> > > wrote: > > > > > > Peter, > > > > > >>> (a) Temporarily add all of the links that would > appear to > > remedy the partition. This has the advantage that it is very > > likely to heal the partition and will do so in the minimal > > amount of convergence time. > > >> > > >> I prefer (a) because of the faster convergence. > > >> Adding all links on a single node to the flooding > topology is > > not going to cause issues to flooding IMHO. > > > > > > > > > Could you (or John) please explain your rationale behind > that? > > It seems counter-intuitive. > > > > it's limited to the links on a single node. From all the > practical > > purposes I don't expect single node to have thousands of > > adjacencies, at > > least not in the DC topologies for which the dynamic > flooding is > > being > > primary invented. > > > > In the environments with large number of adjacencies (e.g. > > hub-and-spoke) it is likely that we would have to make all > these > > links > > part of the flooding topology anyway, because the spoke is > > typically > > dual attached to two hubs only. And the incremental adjacency > > bringup is > > something that an implementation may already support. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> given that the flooding on the LAN in both OSPF and ISIS is > > done as multicast, there is currently no way to enable > flooding, > > either permanent or temporary, towards a subset of the > neighbors > > on the LAN. So if the flooding is enabled on a LAN it is done > > towards all routers connected to the it.. > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > >> Given that all links between routers are p2p these days, I > > would vote for simplicity and make the LAN always part of > the FT. > > > > > > > > > I’m not on board with this yet. Our simulations suggest > that > > this is not necessarily optimal. There are lots of topologies > > (e..g., parallel LANs) where this blanket approach is > suboptimal. > > > > the question is how much are true LANs used as transit > links in > > today's > > networks. > > > > thanks, > > Peter > > > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > . > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org > <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org > <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > >
- [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding 徐小虎(义先)
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding John E Drake
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding David Allan I
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding David Allan I
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding John E Drake
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Huaimo Chen
- Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Huaimo Chen
- Re: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li
- Re: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding Huaimo Chen
- Re: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding David Allan I
- Re: [Lsr] Fwd: Open issues with Dynamic Flooding tony.li