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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Thu, 28 April 2016 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9A612D16B; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:20:58 -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 mcHkFADp-mgm; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:20:56 -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 4C08F12D5F6; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11821; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1461835256; x=1463044856; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=wyA4Tbh//BFXd7RX4XBJdAaXe5GQBheGpVyNk9yDiV8=; b=HZY3jzcxNohTwgeKqbILBQH6LTvo/aXzc4416ug0Oie7WCdrStC7BGke ZDxtPy4EU8IopGOqOa86L7tlyk3dqz+sZJOY+X8P7QjRQaz1+LA+whf5G 1bTyxNw17YBaom0kQhQS2zxVOUoQs/wgCU+GI3RdXBqga7/k/jaSogfyG 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BXBQCp1CFX/5JdJa1egmxMgVAGtHqFA?= =?us-ascii?q?YF2hg8CHIENOhIBAQEBAQEBZSeEQQEBAQQjVhACAQgRAwECKAMCAgIwFAkIAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BDQWIKrINkRgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEVimyEXYJgglYFmBABjhaPE?= =?us-ascii?q?Y8vAScHNINrbIg3fwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.24,546,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="96497754"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2016 09:20:55 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3S9KsDe011761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:20:55 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 05:20:53 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 05:20:54 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Manav Bhatia <>, Adrian Farrel <>
Thread-Topic: Rtg Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRoS9D661ZC0oqxEWFSHtLIzbuCQ==
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:20:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <069b01d1a086$46d4d470$d47e7d50$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D3474D175DE2Faceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>, "" <>, "" <>, 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 09:20:58 -0000

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.


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