LSDB Overflow Limitation?
Charles Yi-tung Liang <Charles_Liang@ALPHANETWORKS.COM> Thu, 08 July 2004 09:20 UTC
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09030 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 05:20:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (209.119.0.2) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <22.00E0B02F@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 5:20:19 -0400
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 24990819 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 05:19:57 -0400
Received: from 210.202.42.135 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 05:09:56 -0400
Received: from CHARLESLIANG ([10.44.8.1]) by hqmail1.alphanetworks.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with SMTP id 2004070817092276:8671 ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:09:22 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on HQMAIL1/Alphanetworks(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 07/08/2004 05:09:22 PM, Serialize by Router on HQMAIL1/Alphanetworks(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 07/08/2004 05:09:26 PM, Serialize complete at 07/08/2004 05:09:26 PM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D5_01C4650E.A3EC5AE0"
Message-ID: <00d801c464cb$9babe910$01082c1e@CHARLESLIANG>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:11:42 +0800
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Charles Yi-tung Liang <Charles_Liang@ALPHANETWORKS.COM>
Organization: Alpha Networks Inc.
Subject: LSDB Overflow Limitation?
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Hi, Here below is my understanding from RFC1765 to process lsdb overflow condition. Goal: Make every OSPF router to be awared of the overflow state, and thus reduce the number of lsdb. That's why we required all the OSPF routers setup the same limited lsdb threshold. Process: As mentioned in RFC1765. Limitation?/Problem?: Since the new LSA update from someone triggers overflow state (when currentLSACount == limitedLSACount) via flooding, there is chance that certain OSPF router will miss such a critial event. Moreover, the following premature actions may make someone else believing there is not yet an overflow event. Why don't we just set up a beacon bit to notify everyone? For example, using a reserved filed in HELLO-Option to notify overflow. Afterward, when all the neighbors acked with overflow beacon-bit, reset (clear) such a bit. Could anyone help clearing my doubt? BTW, if the overflow process needs to be applied to Inter-AS LSAs (Area-Oriented), what kind of LSA is suggested to be prematured? Can I leave RTRLink, NetLink, and ASSummary alone? Will OSPF WG include the overflow process as a part of OSPFv3? Thanks in advance. Charles
- LSDB Overflow Limitation? Charles Yi-tung Liang
- Re: LSDB Overflow Limitation? Erblichs
- Re: LSDB Overflow Limitation? Charles Liang
- Re: LSDB Overflow Limitation? Erblichs
- Re: LSDB Overflow Limitation? Acee Lindem
- Re: LSDB Overflow Limitation? Charles Yi-tung Liang
- Re: LSDB Overflow Limitation? Acee Lindem