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

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Adrian –

As an interested bystander (given I am co-author on the companion IS-IS S-BFD draft) I share the concerns expressed by Carlos and Manav.

Churning S-BFD discriminator assignments is about as likely as churning IP/IPv6 address assignments on a node – it is simply not something that any deployment would be likely to do.
IGP drafts pay close attention to churn for advertisements of information which is expected to be dynamic - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions/ is a good example of this. But there is no reason to expect a similar issue with S-BFD discriminators. Therefore, for the same reasons that base protocol specifications do not discuss the impact of churn in advertising prefix reachability we saw no reason to discuss it in the context of advertising S-BFD discriminators.

It would be helpful if you provided some context as to  why you have raised this point.
Thanx.

   Les

From: rtg-dir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Manav Bhatia
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 10:32 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] 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.


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