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

[Manav Bhatia <[e-mail]>]

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


>