Re: [OSPF] Rtg Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <> Thu, 28 April 2016 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8ED12D923; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.516
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xh0WG-CDFs7w; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB7C612D93A; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=27531; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1461860108; x=1463069708; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=rF6JPUhdlRj2rc6XA7IKIv91K6al/rYV9Rx66WTubA0=; b=V9q2umirh5ZJgGAtmpkCBXmIyXeZ0RbGa+w+bfFSR4Bu/dgY85ILNrvB XP2LNwB3EnSkf/gvzLe3OBborDVLIMyjCetV0iUCuaVx86x+4y6PqyOMU VXxuK626ilF39qVQ65XeB1peEvp1agSr5iSvyRADHRJweDsvvK08BCX+h g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0APBgAoNiJX/5FdJa1egmxMgVAGuX+Bd?= =?us-ascii?q?oYPAoEnORMBAQEBAQEBZSeEQQEBAQMBI1YFCwIBCBEDAQEBASAHAwICMhQJCAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EDgUOiBQIsjaRIgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ0IhiGBdYJWhF0Wgkorg?= =?us-ascii?q?isFh3aLKYRxAYMngWeJCI8Rjy8BIgI+g2tshml/AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,547,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="101656484"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2016 16:15:07 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3SGF7PI013546 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:15:07 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:15:06 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:15:06 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>
To: Adrian Farrel <>
Thread-Topic: Rtg Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:15:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <069b01d1a086$46d4d470$d47e7d50$> <> <> <094e01d1a14d$dee2e320$9ca8a960$>
In-Reply-To: <094e01d1a14d$dee2e320$9ca8a960$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C7984BEA-F2F0-48B5-AB20-ECCFE642A953"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>, Manav Bhatia <>, "<>" <>, OSPF WG List <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Rtg Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 16:19:25 -0000


I would not oppose to making a clarification similar to the following, if the WG things its useful:

The S-BFD Discriminators are expected to be quite static. S-BFD Discriminators may change when enabling the S-BFD functionality or via an explicit configuration event. These will result in a change in the information advertised in the S-BFD Discriminator TLV in OSPF, but are not expected to happen with any regularity.

[I expect that text needs (a lot of) wordsmithing, and might not be useful or desired at all, but just to make the discussion more real]


— Carlos.

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 8:59 AM, Adrian Farrel <> wrote:
> Acee has it right.
> While (of course) stuff can be done in implementations to mitigate the effects, the protocol extensions here increase the size of LSA and increase the amount of flooding. Since the LSAs have to be stored (in some form), it is reasonable to describe the amount of extra information that reflects across a network - maybe express it as "LSA data" and leave it up to an implementation to choose how to store it. Since the number of LSA updates impacts the routing plane processing and bits on the wire, it is reasonable to ask what impact that might have.
> I am interested to hear whether turning Reflectors on and off could be a feature that could cause LSAs to flap and so create flooding ripples in the network.
> Adrian
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) []
> Sent: 28 April 2016 10:21
> To: Manav Bhatia; Adrian Farrel
> Cc: <>rg>;;; OSPF WG List
> Subject: Re: Rtg Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt
> Hi Manav,
> From: Manav Bhatia < <>>
> Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 1:31 AM
> To: Adrian Farrel < <>>
> Cc: "< <>>" < <>>, Routing Directorate < <>>, " <>" < <>>, OSPF WG List < <>>
> Subject: Re: Rtg Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt
>> Hi Adrian,
>> Thanks for the extensive review. I have a minor comment on a minor issue that you raised.
>>> Minor Issues:
>>> I should like to see some small amount of text on the scaling impact on
>>> OSPF. 1. How much additional information will implementations have to
>>> store per node/link in the network? 2. What is the expected churn in
>>> LSAs introduced by this mechanism (especially when the Reflector is
>>> turned on and off)?
>> Isnt this implementation specific? This is what will differentiate one vendor implementation from the other.
>> I am not sure how we can quantify this -- any ideas?
>> This is akin to saying that IS-IS, in contrast to OSPFv2, is more attuned for partial SPF runs because the node information is cleanly separated from the reachability information. However, this isnt entirely true. While i concede that node information is mixed with prefix information in OSPFv2, there still are ways in which clever implementations could separate the two and do exactly what IS-IS does.
>> I took this rather circuitous approach to drive home the point that scalability, churn, overheads on the system are in many cases dependent on the protocol implementation and by that token outside the scope of the IETF drafts.
> I believe what is being requested is a discussion of how often the S-BFD TLV is likely to change, the effects on flooding, and, if required, recommendations for any rate-limiting or other measures to prevent churn.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>>> You *do* have...
>>>    A change in information in the S-BFD Discriminator TLV MUST NOT
>>>    trigger any SPF computation at a receiving router.
>>> ...which is a help.
>> I would be alarmed if an implementation in an absence of this pedantic note triggered SPF runs each time an S-BFD disc changed ! I mean if you understand the idea being discussed then you also understand that a change in this TLV has no bearing on the reachability anywhere. And that knowledge should be enough to prevent SPF runs in most cases !
>> I know that we have added this note but if we need to explicitly spell such things out in all standards then we clearly have bigger problems ! :-)
>> Cheers, Manav