> On Feb 1, 2024, at 12:33 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I’m talking about -06 changes to section 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 to reference “Receive Window” rather than “LSP Burst”. Please look at these. Thanks, Acee > > Let me know if I have misunderstood your point. > > Les > >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
