Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Tue, 05 April 2011 20:13 UTC
Return-Path: <curtis@occnc.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 AAA3C28C13A for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 plyp3KQvUv9p for <ospf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C996728C12B for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.orleans.occnc.com (harbor.orleans.occnc.com [173.9.106.135]) by harbor.orleans.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p35KF9RH060596; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:15:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.orleans.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201104052015.p35KF9RH060596@harbor.orleans.occnc.com>
To: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:57:18 +0530." <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350CFCF67274@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:15:09 -0400
Sender: curtis@occnc.com
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
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: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:13:30 -0000
In message <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350CFCF67274@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" writes: > > > > There is no question that you *can* design and/or code things badly. > > There was work done by Packet Designs and Qwest a while back and > > reported in NANOG. After this work, a major router vendor's > > implementation was optimized and a lot of delays were removed. A big > > mistake they were making is SPF and route install first and then > > reflood. It is better to get the word out that there is a problem. > > I believe RFC 2328 is quite clear that LSAs should be flooded before > "recalculating the routing table structure", so I am quite surprised > that there were implementations that were doing otherwise. Thus I > don't think anybody on this list seriously believes that this is an > issue that folks are trying to solve. I believe the idea is quite > simple - Flooding a changed LSA in HW (data plane) is faster than > doing it in SW (not matter how optimized the latter is) or your > control plane. > > Lets at least look at the proposed solution and see if its worth > considering. Who knows the discussion might lead us to something > better that we may want to use. > > Also note that I am not the author or in any way related to the draft! > :) > > Cheers, Manav We have plenty of junk internet-drafts in IETF. One or two less would be better. If it is not solving a real world problem then we should get rid of it. First we have to agree that there is a requirement. draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01.txt calls for multicast, and cites draft-lu-fast-notification-framework-00.txt for "transporting the message encoding", but the latter makes no mention of multicast. If multicast is used, a multicast routing protocol is needed. A multicast tree can have transient loops. The last thing we need to add to OSPF is a new control plane transient loop creation capability. At least flooding is guarenteed to never loop. When a fault occurs in a multicast tree, the tree must converge before any other fault is reliably reported using multicast. Multiple faults are common. Most are covered in protocols such as RSVP-TE that support SRLG (but many are not even covered by SRLG). This work is half thought out and it doesn't address a real problem so I support telling the authors that it has no place in the OSPF WG. Curtis
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Vishwas Manral
- [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 András Császár
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 John E Drake
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 John E Drake
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 John E Drake
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Sriganesh Kini
- [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Curtis Villamizar
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] draft-kini-ospf-fast-notification-01 Curtis Villamizar