Tony -

Discussion of bypassing the ISO 10589 flooding pacing timer was done in public 
many years ago when sub-second convergence was introduced.
Here is one public paper:

https://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications/achieving-sub-second-igp-convergence-.html

There are also multiple vendor specific configuration guides which discuss 
tuning LSP pacing for fast convergence - please consult your favorite vendor's 
documentation links (not my place to share such links).

No doubt others can find other public references.

I would also point out that the initial exchange of LSPDB occurs on adjacency 
UP - which is a "good news" event for which there are no tight time 
constraints. Premature advertisement of a new adjacency in IS-IS has been 
addressed via the SA bit in RFC 5306. So the performance of flooding per link 
isn’t a problem we need to solve.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 7:40 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
> Cc: Henk Smit <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Teasing us with secrets
> 
> 
> Les,
> 
> > I am not "teasing".
> > I also don't think this is much of a secret.
> >
> > I am pretty sure experienced implementers know what I am talking about.
> > (BTW, I include you in that group. :-) )
> 
> 
> Ongoing undocumented knowledge is wholly irrelevant when writing
> standards.  There’s simply nothing to reference and thus a tease.
> 
> It’s true that there is no obligation to document this knowledge, but at the
> same time, that knowledge cannot be used to pre-empt alternative
> solutions.
> 
> 
> > What I am very concerned about is that we are focused on the wrong
> problem. We don't have a problem flooding a large number of LSPs on a
> single interface.
> 
> The fact that there is undocumented knowledge that completely contradicts
> established standards that is necessary for scalable operations implies that
> there is indeed a problem.
> 
> Tony
> 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to