Acee - > > --- > > //Acee > > > > A bigger issue from that historical artifact is that some text refers to > > "LSP > Burst Window" when they should refer to the "new" (from -01) "Receive > Window sub-TLV". That's a bigger issue as "in letter" this may be seen as > technical change (even if "in spirit" the Flow Control Receive Window > logically > refers to the Receive Window sub-TLV) > > This requires the following changes in the 6.2.1 "Flow control" section: > > I see that the changes are already in place in -06. Note that I think you > should > rename “Receive Window” to “LSP Burst Window” for consistency. In reading > the guidance in section 6.2.1, It seems to me that this should have been “LSP > Receive Window” all along. We are not changing the semantics of "LSP Burst > Window" or "LSP Receive Window”. > > I’d be interested in what the other co-authors think (especially Les 😎).
[LES:] It seems to me you are confusing "Burst" and "Receive". When we discuss fast-flooding we tend to focus on the "major incidents" e.g., a node with 1000 neighbors goes down - we are likely to need to flood 1000 LSPs. "Burst" isn't very useful here because the Burst Size (was Burst Window) is small compared to the total number of LSPs that need to be flooded as quickly as possible. But far more common are the "minor incidents" where a single link goes down - where a small number (typically 2) LSPs need to be flooded - or a single node with a modest number of neighbors goes down where the number of LSPs which will be flooded is still modest (5 or 10 or 20). In these cases, being able to flood a "burst" is worthwhile because it means we can flood all the LSPs associated with a topology change more quickly - meaning fewer SPFs need to be executed. This notion was first highlighted 20 years ago when "fast-convergence" work was done. But the "Burst Size" is certainly expected to be significantly smaller than the "Receive Window" - and the latter logically includes the LSPs received as part of a Burst. So I don’t see that what you are suggesting makes sense. Let me know if I have misunderstood your point. Les > > Thanks, > Acee > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
