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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Thu, 28 April 2016 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD0512D6C9; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 06:00:15 -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 olQ6fhPoNWRM; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 06:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92E4112D6C6; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 06:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3SD00gR029543; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:00:00 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3SCxwXI029469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:59:59 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <>, "'Manav Bhatia'" <>, "'Adrian Farrel'" <>
References: <069b01d1a086$46d4d470$d47e7d50$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:59:57 +0100
Message-ID: <094e01d1a14d$dee2e320$9ca8a960$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_094F_01D1A156.40AACD90"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFw1kCCaiIwUNLtEKxshcWR2bdBZAEdXWDpAeZ8YfygSM8KEA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--21.737-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--21.737-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pS5owHKhBO0TfAqiYFP7Botbv1rdjkQ67yWPaQc4INT/9J/619DRE3Z4 tIf0VHEEdZFyrfGoFQKhI3awKlxWqNB/8y3gYF9v1FnWYpN8q2HomPrNi98UBBRZ/9wBMhGsADL /rI2baks8Yar5brBvC4k+6F8uUgJCTAoAs2mBYBtswYo64ufkVTRsfGqPls+VbuBZJ8qsrITBJy 85Q6g8Nmun1oUp8bDuONMIq6tJjPVCBQieSpAGz4zb2GR6Ttd3hEIiqNvBrmNrEoFtNYg0C3G0Q /1vTGSPJYhudvYhR94VaPu7cbODbdXLNRKQZEdgzGZPOh8RY45Xug5Vc1us7XzlhuYw8JsTrWVw Ou7Bu1u56+06pUqc5u2MkBhwR/oCxeit2rvNhiUzSlmIs9AhOiyZvBThPVi1auHKE5Laxl/PnMA i6bw5xBi/iQ1k2aZOg1j35+66aZM1+m+DoPpuz5U7Bltw5qVLI9yVcHNDU7baqqH/oHw+kW63OW BILoNo+wxScAVbogf80Dc+R0jowlSd3xC25FnoxqZyCOmsQ/NpWLGvOMNoU3oZ5YK74mUQ7/+9s wuISRWd8KCdlHrmBehzKJYil63oaWbbDm4LdIZ3vIzA7XyIiCEF1RdqrHVdtdx2lXHjF1Ii/B2g ujrEHzB6EdCmNDGVVbEDP0uzojXyTBeqcpWTVlRe8joruKtpIFb2VdwQdkDROhK+RFWo5lthOgN FYwZakNCK/RB7QjECSHHGjA3FAhfyTevQtfkQkdcpJKX5Jwr8BlbXy+O/WnKuL8SC59l3YCowKS vpI+95QzetarMsxEgF6uuiHQ764dAvvfy6ufaeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1kTfEkyaZdxFGCd0S 0NCslehZ2s367dV/8NPq2Jx6+q4e9hqenrZzY/pMkAjLyvVSwwcGKLTYEc=
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 13:00:15 -0000

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: "<>" <>rg>, Routing Directorate <>rg>, "" <>rg>, 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