>BTW, there is another reason for our proposal. With the incoming
drafts about flooding-topology-reduction, there is a new problem.
>All these proposals have situations where non-flooding adjacencies
suddenly change to flooding adjacencies. When that happens, the LSDBs need to
be synchronized again. To do that, all of them propose "just send a CSNP and be
done with it". Well, the more LSPs, the more CNSPs that need to be >sent.
With 10k LSPs that's
>110 CSNPs. CSNPs are not reliable. This re-synchronization happens
when there is churn in the IGP. Are we sure CSNPs aren't dropped somewhere ?
These do get dropped and with default configurations of lot of commercial
products, where no periodic CSNP advertisements on P2P links, caused lot of
grief in even in regular SP networks (especially in some HA scenarios).
It's obvious and one has to enable recommend periodic CSNPs for any proposal
relevant here (despite 110 CSNPs, yes inefficient but saves you big time in
corner cases). This is kind of most needed insurance...
--
Uma C.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
