IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsvr] Kicking off the LSVR (Link State Vector Routing) charter discussion

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E209012D777 for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:41:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 1jNDPJJcTIH5 for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20AB7129C6D for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:41:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13808; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516920065; x=1518129665; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=XomHeXAaQNThd8rxS9tsf/lSZ/X+jAbBYdmxhIA3pes=; b=YuzqmoHwR4FUIlFv49tXbY59zRN8N6eHPv89E9oEUw+kshRmPDPnrdPU jLJzBLGpIUEFjzoemeupqLlBRCQXbxRFG+0eKCuQk9yDj8Ont1xoYkR/a OsU70P/XFgWqALX3gkB7JEBqiyl/w90joZ/y+e4axqbXILhM/7YOxbKqu g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AtAgB7XGpa/4kNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJKeGZ0JweDVpkOggKJEohdhVSCFwoYAQqFGAIagX5VFwEBAQEBAQEBAmsohSMBAQEDAQEBIUsLEAIBCA4DAwECAScDAgICHwYLFAkIAgQBDQWJUUwDDQgQtRSCJ4dDDYMLAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWEUYIVgz8pgwWCa0QBAQKCDxaCYTGCNAWLaI4miT89ApBahQaCG5IKinyDJokLAhEZAYE7ASEBNj+BEXAVPSoBgX8JhE54jRGBFwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,413,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="61764390"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jan 2018 22:40:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0PMehkc002023 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:40:43 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:40:42 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:40:42 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
CC: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsvr] Kicking off the LSVR (Link State Vector Routing) charter discussion
Thread-Index: AdOJ/UwcaD75A6yMRfGV3jqNSACMxQJ7NLIAAJMqsgAAANZIAAAAiT2AAABLGoAAAW06AAAE16GA//+t/4A=
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:40:42 +0000
Message-ID: <3BA985D3-A670-4C5B-831B-F4BD93FF7ABC@cisco.com>
References: <AM5PR0701MB2836FFBB9A9F6C3D7C3C7122E0110@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <f590456ccee0498eadbb5fa4e4e048cc@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <m2shatlqsd.wl-randy@psg.com> <e7462ad1b5044442a40a505a8d8602c3@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <m2k1w5loyu.wl-randy@psg.com> <4DD58182-10E6-480F-A787-DE03DE089355@gmail.com> <m28tcllmor.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAMMESszeZPMK88a-b0yX=kzpo+TLm1OwPp6ARd8od1AhUbQtsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESszeZPMK88a-b0yX=kzpo+TLm1OwPp6ARd8od1AhUbQtsg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3BA985D3A6704C5B831BF4BD93FF7ABCciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/DB-TGuj9E8Lny_YtUPLNQ3fWCPo>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kicking off the LSVR (Link State Vector Routing) charter discussion
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:41:07 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

I totally agree.

I really don’t see a good place to insert area boundaries without some the clever deaggregation techniques in protocols such as RIFT. Also, keep in mind that this is BGP, so we really don’t need areas since at any point we desire.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsvr <lsvr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 5:34 PM
To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kicking off the LSVR (Link State Vector Routing) charter discussion

Hi!

The WG can discuss whether the current mechanisms are enough or not.  However, to constrain the initial work to something that can be delivered in a short timeframe (12-18 months), the charter already talks about operation within a single “distribution domain”, which is akin to a flooding domain.  IOW, the current scope is a single area/domain.

Alvaro.


On January 25, 2018 at 3:15:42 PM, Randy Bush (randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>) wrote:
>>>>> Should LSVR introduce a grouping in the way that OSPF has areas and
>>>>> ISIS has levels?
>>>> to what purpose?
>>> For scalability.
>> i thought that is why we were using bgp.
> That addresses the scalability of update propagation, but the SPF
> operation is still O(n log n) on the size of the area database. If
> there is no abstraction, this will balloon.

does bgp not already provide [too] many mechanisms for scoping
propagation?

>>> The OSPF "areas" concept looks quite easy: just use regular VGP
>>> routes between "areas". The only difference is that an OSPF ABR
>>> straddles the area boundaries, whereas an AS boundary is between 2
>>> ASBRs in BGP.
>>> The ISIS concept of levels could get interesting if duplicated in
>>> BGP SPF. It joins level 1 domains with level 2 links.
>> i am sure we can figure out how to complicate it.
> It actually would be more complicated to not respect the abstractions
> that the base protocol is expecting.

given that the base protocol is bgp, we could list the abstractions it
provides for limiting scope except this margin is too small.

randy

_______________________________________________
Lsvr mailing list
Lsvr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsvr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email