Re: [Rift] AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 1)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 08 February 2023 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B3EC1595FE; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 05:00:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rWn1C_DtRTcL; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 05:00:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52E2EC1524C8; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 05:00:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id 16so3279241pfo.8; Wed, 08 Feb 2023 05:00:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date :mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=eBDPSr19U9j3whUeT6+GqkKmqopJVzqf/YWAFI6K8Rc=; b=g986kTH+t6h+DNLSWzuNkHXawtAzYeBmpdoXFhddxwOlYk/7+jd6AcIS9szn3N7Ce4 yFhZLbUCHFIOW1Hl7d/WMohKCACy88oPTEYI7FNzpFJyvTIZ3rx7IYA6P2QE237yjhU1 6piDWYFOF4dTKQApNAyqTBPqInd5LEVW39nD+u/eHPt3aH6c2sswmyBlBZrgFte5aft2 tdD7thdJSqOXmRtiQds707ecbsqA5ed3+yBn1Xy/JPwj/ALf9lnYpVvVL7qFiw7Qj2ST HTvIt1fD++lkeSwxc3o7iBzIX3Zua5kGxvHaNZ5Px0nJSEia9mF5Q3lyEFoVpYp+Jtak bM9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date :mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=eBDPSr19U9j3whUeT6+GqkKmqopJVzqf/YWAFI6K8Rc=; b=iyGFJ+av/YG8XO44idhPZVJSM5Nj3D4ZvrrIIs7eGrgmEaFTpfJlSu+yPPqF5Bo5br 3sUZRoSsuvqionO02f09p2NK5hq4c3e2PqYSZVRddrxxnWm7FafwTob2vMAjYon6pT7w xpekd6gkv4okPhiEhynTeP6U/Z1rgJpbvh32pF80CYmGy6G7tglW9jyqAufa72yjSTS+ co0cDSkvcZyefPuNveEH02LzU38AYuTga9AiBd0eYcRW/RHywSlh3RETV/ADutfH7+Oh r2WLS8dA6MY41TJ9bvB+1vsiqYPlCwsTFKaNiVwYuvwScdpss2wI6ojraMSze1PeGfjk c7OQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXV0hVrTI8F1g3OiLmXzwDHhVV/oqZgKz0YPPkQeY+MKMdwNOLb 6MFrD2SH9FDKyYdZ+Woi+piG9cwMHw13ibGp5YM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+CG7vzil1lYNAbPL4rJEoP3ZoXZehoKR7B9ou951IIhJ6rApXIK4cZ8IOr65lpxyVHUYn9rQjxzxSwRsCD+yU=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:955d:0:b0:5a8:455c:2bc5 with SMTP id w29-20020aa7955d000000b005a8455c2bc5mr455214pfq.33.1675861203988; Wed, 08 Feb 2023 05:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 07:00:02 -0600
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9F320B28-BE90-42BB-A320-BC1E62E61420@juniper.net>
References: <CAMMESsxTQnUDMGRiLPhB+Ci090xkE7Ea9HLC8E4SLQ7rv+qFnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hO+uOz4ubANSyyqYg0uGRtCYeMF1JXBJziw-taqrNDa0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESsw7KqiADbwdmg12jv-09LBqJLk8OTSO=6ByVATwShe7pQ@mail.gmail.com> <9F320B28-BE90-42BB-A320-BC1E62E61420@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 07:00:02 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMMESsxmn8Gb3OOJqST0n5nUiFWjSREURk0BFR8bpuKtCKtDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jordan Head <jhead@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "rift-chairs@ietf.org" <rift-chairs@ietf.org>, "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rift-rift@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rift-rift@ietf.org>, "EXT-zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/7hgla8vzeBtd9O80pQZHFy3kMJY>
Subject: Re: [Rift] AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 1)
X-BeenThere: rift@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Routing in Fat Trees <rift.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rift/>
List-Post: <mailto:rift@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:00:06 -0000

On August 15, 2022 at 8:00:08 AM, Jordan Head wrote:

Hi!


> 208 * automatic pruning and load balancing of topology flooding
> 209 exchanges over a sufficient subset of links which resolves the
> 210 traditional problem of link-state protocol struggling with densely
> 211 meshed graphs due to high volume of flooding traffic
> 212 (Section 4.2.3.9),
>
> [major] "...which resolves the traditional problem of link-state
> protocol struggling" Comparing with other protocols -- and the
> problem is not described anyway.
>
> Suggestion>
> * automatic pruning and load balancing of topology flooding
> exchanges over a sufficient subset of links (Section 4.2.3.9),
>
> jhead>> I think the problem is stated but could be a bit clearer.
> jhead>> Let's use your suggestion and simply add a clarifying statement as I
> jhead>> think it carries weight here.
> jhead>> "automatic pruning and load balancing of topology flooding exchanges
> jhead>> over a sufficient subset of links (Section 4.2.3.9). This resolves
> jhead>> scaling and convergence challenges caused by increased levels of
> jhead>> flooding when typical link-state protocols are used in densely meshed
> jhead>> graphs."

I want to get rid of any comparisons with "typical link-state
protocols".  rift is not a typical link-state protocol, so its
specification should stand alone.

There are mentions of other protocols elsewhere, please take a look.

Thanks!

Alvaro.