[trill] Asymmetric link costs and D-Tree calculations

Olen Stokes <ostokes@extremenetworks.com> Thu, 28 February 2013 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ostokes@extremenetworks.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6679621F8BF1 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:21:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NniDCqdw1Y9B for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ussc-casht-p1.extremenetworks.com (ussc-casht-p2.extremenetworks.com [207.179.9.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20E421F8BD4 for <trill@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com ([10.0.4.74]) by ussc-casht-p2.corp.extremenetworks.com ([10.255.181.88]) with mapi; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:21:55 -0800
From: Olen Stokes <ostokes@extremenetworks.com>
To: "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:21:54 -0800
Thread-Topic: Asymmetric link costs and D-Tree calculations
Thread-Index: Ac4V3Y6ATGi9IG/PRKq/U2lfEPXETg==
Message-ID: <A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5029BB4E8D921@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A3C4E51A53661B4EBEE7C5F5E6FCDEB5029BB4E8D921USEXCHANGEc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [trill] Asymmetric link costs and D-Tree calculations
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:21:57 -0000

Appendix A.1 of RFC 6325 discusses the fact that "two RBridges may know they are connected but each sees the link as a different speed from how it is seen by the other."



We have been looking at this and how it relates to D-Tree calculation as discussed in Section 4.5.1.  In that section, it states, "Each RBridge RBn independently calculates a tree rooted at RBi by performing the SPF (Shortest Path First) calculation with RBi as the root".  So, it appears that the D-Tree is calculated from the root RBridge outward.



The following three paragraphs describe how to determine the potential parents P for a node N.  There does not appear to be any mention of direction so it would seem that all calculations are done in the direction from the root RBi outward.



The last paragraph in Section 4.5.1 states, "In other words, the set of potential parents for N, for the tree rooted at R, consists of those that give equally minimal cost paths from N to R and that have distinct IS-IS IDs, based on what is reported in LSPs."  In this case, costs are discussed as inward from node N towards root RBi.



This change in direction of cost calculation could potentially be confusing when there are asymmetric link costs as described in Appendix A.1.  For any parent P found during the SPF calculation, it is possible that the cost from N to

P is different than the cost from P to N.  It is also possible that none of the parents found during the SPF calculation are found along any of the "equally minimal cost paths from N to R".



Is the potential change of direction when calculating costs in the last paragraph unintended?  Would the paragraph have been more clear discussing "equally minimal cost paths from R to N"?



Is there agreement in the presence of asymmetric link costs that it is possible that none of the parents found during the SPF calculation are found along any of the "equally minimal cost paths from N to R" calculated for known unicast traffic?



Cheers,

Olen