The IESG has approved the following document: - 'An Algorithm for Computing Dynamic Flooding Topologies' (draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm-05.txt) as Experimental RFC
This document is the product of the Link State Routing Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and Ketan Talaulikar. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm/ Technical Summary Link-state routing protocols suffer from excessive flooding in dense network topologies. Dynamic flooding alleviates the problem by decoupling the flooding topology from the base topology. Link-state protocol updates are flooded only on the sparse flooding topology while data traffic is still forwarded on the base topology. This document describes an algorithm to obtain a sparse subgraph from a dense graph. The resulting subgraph has certain desirable properties and can be used by a centralized Area Leader to compute a flooding topology for dynamic flooding. This document discloses the algorithm that we have developed in order to make it easier for other developers to implement similar algorithms. We do not claim that our algorithm is optimal, rather it is a pragmatic effort and we expect that further research and refinement can improve the results. We are not currently proposing that this algorithm be standardized, nor that the working group use this as a basis for further standardization work, however we have no objections if the working group chooses to do so. This document is published as an Experimental RFC to gain operational and implementation experience with the specified dynamic flooding algorithm. The intent is to assess the suitability of this algorithm for advancement to the Standards Track as a Proposed Standard, pending sufficient deployment experience and feedback from the community. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is a strong consensus for this document. Interest peaked during its intial discussion and evolution. Initially, there was a controversy with respect to distributed vs centralized computation of the flooding topology. The draft evolved to support either model. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? The draft is specific to the IGPs and has been reviewed by Adrian Farrel as a Routing Directorate review. The draft is Experimental due to there only being one IS-IS implementation and the fact that it represents a significant change to the existing IGP flooding mode. This is consistent with other LSR documents specifying significant changes but without the attendant implementation and inter-op. Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Acee Lindem. The Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde. IANA Note OK - No actions needed _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
