IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] FYI on draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01

Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com> Wed, 30 March 2011 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <sriganeshkini@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A81A3A6A9A for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.83
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mN36+7oXjT-S for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E933A6A87 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so687426qwg.31 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=p3nxr8Jsf08jNE14qSKRPvQletDqZTZIAVbDJfMxXPI=; b=cVreV7H1v4iYx1ANcnybJ3ApFNV1AhFMny3WnWzUAWarYUphM5Yy3TiJTp+qpG7Azm o2JlkR21nQ6ZtOM/os9nRRMjdEK2xZs8VyFMRADsUjFNaXS+A5cODfj9BcJBbUgZEos6 bU9+kfDZl1zw4kerE5uRPbO08f7VPSAtajEW8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=WvAlznhb1tkCXk6mfW/KIbKMYv0cO2+q6sBugZCKyNdwswgLMd2O3MygGJySseGxye ODPyAx04nYHaZzBjl8UIYVUJnq/dueMg2JlvcQoL5JWn7SqxuVmfcxKV9gOqR5fPkVfZ j4RGyWhKYQqFnlmwy+dYsqzM0raI9+/B/SDpk=
Received: by 10.229.1.93 with SMTP id 29mr687691qce.66.1301465863755; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sriganeshkini@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.136.12 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikHvGEuMkrTW1JP1VK=G8-84WGi0EG38x5SqD+=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5A5E55DF96F73844AF7DFB0F48721F0F5701F43A9B@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <AANLkTikHvGEuMkrTW1JP1VK=G8-84WGi0EG38x5SqD+=@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:17:12 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3sxkXTNYuM34TnxNu9957YeRyjM
Message-ID: <AANLkTimWWkLqS-L5ruisVd4vAF21OdFqvNE5yRWVkAC4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: albert.tian@ericsson.com, Wenhu Lu <wenhu.lu@ericsson.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] FYI on draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:16:07 -0000

inline

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Authors,
> please kindly consider my comments and questions below (though some could be
> duplicates of already received):
>
> section 4.3 Fast Flooding has reliability as first requirement. I've noticed
> that Section 4 Operation doesn't list Auto-discovery or Registration as part
> of Fast Failure Notification mechanism. Is it assumed that an IGP will build
> the list of addressees, participants of the Fast Notification?
> how would node(s) that detected a failure would achieve reliable transport
> of notifications?

This is through capability advertisement. It was in the -00 but was
erroneously omitted in -01. Will be re-added.

> if full set of destinations is not known what indicates that notification
> reached all participants?
> when requiring reliability of notification transport you consider
> "notification received" or "notification processed"

There is no ack for FN. Redundancy is achieved by using redundant
trees. OSPF Flooding ensures consistency in the worst case.

> section 5.2 I believe that in the scenario you present not only node B will
> flood notifications, but node A will flood them as well. That would not
> change convergence time if only to improve it in some scenarios but it might
> be worth to mention that notifications will be generated by both ends of a
> failed link.

That depends on the failure and its detection. It will only improve
things and has been mentioned in the related drafts.

>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Sriganesh Kini
> <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just an FYI to the list
>>
>> This draft
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 was
>> presented at the OSPF WG mtg today.
>>
>> Thanks for the comments/questions at the mic. We will submit a new version
>> addressing the comments.
>>
>> Note that the other drafts related to Fast Notification (FN) are
>> draft-lu-fn-transport and draft-lu-fast-notification-framework. These were
>> presented in RTGWG.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> - Sri
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> OSPF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>
>



-- 
- Sri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email