Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 02 December 2019 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@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 22B65120099; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:59:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 jdRY4HjO5Wwv; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:59:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (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 4476212003E; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:59:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id p17so78798wmi.3; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 08:59:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LhiNEy80MWnQNQ+jc+JZ2dVTaJ39tS7uR8Zmbe73yz8=; b=hORG2QxeAzPuTUZ0JgFtE2GyzvMRM25s3W6zRUmZ4IlS6O7/WZwU++H1JldfYcjDV2 +RGuk1u4kyDSWegvNWvQjaJitkL3egkdk03ue7uu6zDqfSzdLwnHApH7hQBEOIEzwth7 DE1ooSFH0h5z9tjgJam9pEI9rcmsj22had5OitgUjOOt4p+xTn6vK5oHW/bqRw6W/9S3 fHWwMKiB+2nfoR5jb/oQFAkUKHTgHOpi/5VEUWEhrvd3W8SdlISGdT9zSZPf+qNDCbHD WyfLVYA81d8I8EkC7zFLMLuqz8WwqScJk40kSEPt3orFfs48+svcReHsMJqFNtoXfTW+ WRGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LhiNEy80MWnQNQ+jc+JZ2dVTaJ39tS7uR8Zmbe73yz8=; b=ZIrU7fj+KkFM6wRDXxESm6a2ZXHoenSkEYTalkh+6G4K7XnCKz3cpVSfvJVfAY7ZOa khUtZTuuFy+0yJGh7cYs1NJz17qW/oRpGbMcgu7Dqb9adDwasA2QePCKBHlpgG6ZXqz8 YrBoE5/sstbyOJCfnrMk5y3fP8maNEnfQYiDf9gvbShEMLPjSQVjRu6SVDfeM3R9jWie olf9aFMs2N3aTqK6Ex+98ZGQT+y7+ByM2tqdaU/dpEQMas39dCbK41PU5LtPOkVoHEsD e963TgjZjfE2U8EZeF1REIkLpVUM3Gr1Gt2r8hAFlbQh6IhYFMokTUT47IHJdOsQP0qv i8JA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVw1ejvs9ZcTs/dZJXShiHllINTnRwUEoDXYo1WIjuQwVa0hnPa eF+PO7n8NOAsT3axwJ02f5m/uwKwcDfaWqBGR33ODJhr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw3Z6huTopFPD1rbRbM1ZrS8GEFzftt9J5/7+etsubIPDgRYxQEwrBMx/h8W15xtSpbJfDsW+ZrsBjcMcqhxYc=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c216:: with SMTP id x22mr29157027wmi.51.1575305973292; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 08:59:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:59:32 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <157513086016.14490.11992325783200183386.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <157513086016.14490.11992325783200183386.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:59:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESswJdLAraYvqXHyh3uAyPAH3nYs_eBYMq2gOCiZSsgNiCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>, =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tl?= <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/yCc5L0ekmzsyLrWWJbdgDfKEs5w>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-ospf-?= =?utf-8?q?ospfv2-hbit-11=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
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, 02 Dec 2019 16:59:37 -0000

On November 30, 2019 at 11:21:01 AM, Éric Vyncke wrote:

Eric:

Hi!

> == DISCUSS ==
>
> -- Section 5 --
> The risk of having inconsistent view of the topology with H-bit aware and
> unaware routers seems possible to me (albeit perhaps only transient). Has
> this feature been tested / simulated in large scale networks?

Yes, as with other operations in a network (reconvergence, for
example), there is a risk of transient inconsistency.  §5 already
makes recommendations to mitigate transient states.  What explicitly
are you looking for to address your DISCUSS?

I'll let the authors reply about tests/simulations.

Thanks!

Alvaro.