Hi all, I hope that everyone had a safe and uneventful trip home from Prague and that no one else had the seat right in front of the screaming baby. ;-)
I would like to re-open the discussion on the mailing list. Based on the off-line discussions that I had with folks, I believe that we’re leaning towards including the LANs in the signaling and rate limiting link addition during repair. Dissent? Discussion? Tony > On Mar 4, 2019, at 9:54 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Hello, > > There are still two issues that need to be discussed and I was hoping that we > could make progress on the mailing list before Prague. > > 1) Temporary additions to the flooding topology > > There are several cases where we would like to make temporary additions to > the flooding topology: repairing a partition of the flooding topology or > adding a node to the base topology for the first time. We can: > > (a) Temporarily add all of the links that would appear to remedy the > partition. This has the advantage that it is very likely to heal the > partition and will do so in the minimal amount of convergence time. > > (b) For each node adjacent to the partition, add no more than a single > link across the partition. If that does not repair the partition in a while > (LSP propagation time + SPF time), then add another link. > Iterate as necessary. This has the advantage that it minimizes the > risk of creating a cascade failure. > > 2) Inclusion of pseduonodes in the System IDs TLV > > In the general case, a topology can include LANs. If a LAN is in parallel > with a P2P link, the Area Leader cannot currently distinguish between the two > links. This can be of importance if there are other > systems also on the LAN that should be using their LAN interface for > flooding. > > We propose to change the System IDs TLV to include a pseudo-node ID as > well as the system ID. It would also make sense to rename the TLV to be the > “IS-IS Area Node IDs TLV”. > > Behaviorally, we should add a requirement that if the Area Leader includes > a pseudonode in the flooding topology, then all systems with an adjacency on > that LAN should use the LAN as part of the > flooding topology, whether or not they are explicitly listed as adjacent > to the LAN in the Flooding Path TLV. > > Thoughts? Comments? Flames? > > Regards, > Tony > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
