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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Tue, 03 May 2016 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B72D12D77D; Tue, 3 May 2016 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QuHRh7ec2xcS; Tue, 3 May 2016 11:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2C4912D11E; Tue, 3 May 2016 11:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u43I6Klt004640; Tue, 3 May 2016 19:06:20 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u43I6HTf004625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 May 2016 19:06:18 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Carlos Pignataro \(cpignata\)'" <>
References: <069b01d1a086$46d4d470$d47e7d50$> <> <> <094e01d1a14d$dee2e320$9ca8a960$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 19:06:16 +0100
Message-ID: <051101d1a566$7d582170$78086450$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0512_01D1A56E.DF211D50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFw1kCCaiIwUNLtEKxshcWR2bdBZAEdXWDpAeZ8YfwCW7Rb+gM0ffgPoCR9zKA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--27.919-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--27.919-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pS5owHKhBO3FJ6ywrp0gou5xcghYf69z1kqyrcMalqVElaZ44wdr5OB8 OdeiJ2JqQ66AfpgtCSFb/YntQAmqPCh5A3bWOsipliwpJdZauweLKfr4l0eFzzCmUYns3FLTcs4 A80KaakCs1nrDbiMM4nLHqPoioImUjh97YmbtUFLhG1IOMb7PsDFFLhGUD8AWlxrbJNbm/wSmyQ VG1kMNf1YmKyHeh965kjcEZRdXvqZB1m5nja+ukRcqpH7D1rtQXru95hSuhjSUvX/ci5TjsgQyX K9eC6mUsHABAwbw/VrO/WH+Jlz/QMcxC9l7kaqpi1u/Wt2ORDrvJY9pBzgg1P/0n/rX0NETdni0 h/RUcQR1kXKt8agVAqEjdrAqXFao0H/zLeBgX2/UWdZik3yrYeiY+s2L3xQEFFn/3AEyEaz0t3k tSH728veBD01Dl6u2LSi5+Ear6Yj8BymGA9MWAoQnnAFRgjn9BdebOqawiLvMbKh5QsVRoN7EHA uRAfwU+pOmmUIxFU48QSrJjunoMZELwEFeVXChiVYleIBIrY/6e9LB8NtoJadrpTvh7T6oaUehc Y2jtkUZCegJ5M3wUKqNEi0TOKDzOXJUfyM1K02cgbKevk5shqTYf9v9flolslgQm+u5vajKooqv Q0Sk9I/1zKj4Efpl0ZQB2zwuLEbWcuaikvd2WoCOjMAO81E5CQ3xS+zL6e0g1QuRyB58YfyL40X ovS1aNtrqBJtuOX5BVgr5vOsPONLF6Y0L7R/QcFEiuPxHjsW0X0Yw27VuouQ45nVtPqmxrsFU8U w5BC6ytmB2/5InT/zxIC9LasqudG57tpB6osSeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1kTfEkyaZdxFGCd0S 0NCsgxrwr9aUfM2GwbyzEn0NCHzt0LjaI+ob6YL3Fz0tpLPPpCuffGH9zI=
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, 'Manav Bhatia' <>,, '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: Tue, 03 May 2016 18:06:32 -0000

Alia asked me to confirm whether your proposed change would have caused me to not have made this comment on review.
It would certainly have helped. But...
"quite static" is not very clear as a relative term.
I think the concern might be that the network is large and there are many BFD sessions. 
Unless have I have misunderstood, it is not just a change in discriminator, but also a change to whether reflection is wanted or not.
Anyway, this is not a trap, just an encouragement to make a statement that helps readers to know that they don't need to worry. The parameters are:
- what causes an LSA to be flooded?
- how does that compare to the number of LSAs normally flooded?
- the security thing about using this as a way to cause excess flooding
- how much extra state info does an OSPF implementation have to hold
   for these LSA in the LSA DB?
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [] 
Sent: 28 April 2016 17:15
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee); Manav Bhatia; <>rg>; <>rg>;; OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: Rtg Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt
I would not oppose to making a clarification similar to the following, if the WG things its useful:
The S-BFD Discriminators are expected to be quite static. S-BFD Discriminators may change when enabling the S-BFD functionality or via an explicit configuration event. These will result in a change in the information advertised in the S-BFD Discriminator TLV in OSPF, but are not expected to happen with any regularity.
[I expect that text needs (a lot of) wordsmithing, and might not be useful or desired at all, but just to make the discussion more real]
— Carlos.
On Apr 28, 2016, at 8:59 AM, Adrian Farrel <> wrote:
Acee has it right.
While (of course) stuff can be done in implementations to mitigate the effects, the protocol extensions here increase the size of LSA and increase the amount of flooding. Since the LSAs have to be stored (in some form), it is reasonable to describe the amount of extra information that reflects across a network - maybe express it as "LSA data" and leave it up to an implementation to choose how to store it. Since the number of LSA updates impacts the routing plane processing and bits on the wire, it is reasonable to ask what impact that might have.
I am interested to hear whether turning Reflectors on and off could be a feature that could cause LSAs to flap and so create flooding ripples in the network.
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [] 
Sent: 28 April 2016 10:21
To: Manav Bhatia; Adrian Farrel
Cc: <>rg>;;; OSPF WG List
Subject: Re: Rtg Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt
Hi Manav,
From: Manav Bhatia < <>>
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 1:31 AM
To: Adrian Farrel < <>>
Cc: "< <>>" < <>>gt;, Routing Directorate < <>>gt;, " <>" < <>>gt;, 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