Hi Tony,
On 05/03/2019 17:47 , tony...@tony.li wrote:
Hi Peter,
Adding all links on a single node to the flooding topology is not
going to cause issues to flooding IMHO.
Could you (or John) please explain your rationale behind that? It
seems counter-intuitive.
it's limited to the links on a single node. From all the practical
purposes I don't expect single node to have thousands of adjacencies,
at least not in the DC topologies for which the dynamic flooding is
being primary invented.
What if the node in question is one of the spines? Folks are building
systems that large… and it seems inevitable that port counts will only
grow. Toto, I don’t think that’s an AGS any more…. ;-)
In the environments with large number of adjacencies (e.g.
hub-and-spoke) it is likely that we would have to make all these links
part of the flooding topology anyway, because the spoke is typically
dual attached to two hubs only. And the incremental adjacency bringup
is something that an implementation may already support.
LS topologies can have a very large number of adjacencies as well,
typically with multiple spines, so for a new spine, all of the of the
links may be unnecessary.
ok, we talked bout the balance before - adding one link at a time to the
FT may result in slow recovery, while adding all link is claimed to be
dangerous. What is the right number? I feel that the increment value can
be something that the implementation can choose or even make
configurable, so the user can decide based on the particular topology
and scale. We are not going to find the magic value I'm afraid.
Our simulations suggest that this is not necessarily optimal. There
are lots of topologies (e.g., parallel LANs) where this blanket
approach is suboptimal.
the question is how much are true LANs used as transit links in
today's networks.
As Xiaohu suggested, the management plane would be an obvious
application. Interconnects also seem likely.
I believe his case is completely orthogonal to this discussion as in his
case there is a single giant LAN used for flooding and we all know we
can not optimize flooding inside a LAN itself.
Let’s set the algorithmic parts aside. Do you have an objection to
supporting them in the signaling?
will get complicated, especially for OSPF/OSPFv3. Also temporary
flooding operation on LAN is tricky and sub-optimal. I don't really
believe it's worth the complexity.
my 2c,
Peter
Tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
