Acee - So in 6.2.1.1 you propose to change:
" By sending the Receive Window sub-TLV..." To " By sending the Burst Size sub-TLV..." I agree with that change. Bruno - what do you think? In 6.2.2.2 you propose to change: " In order for the LSP Receive Window to be a useful parameter, an LSP transmitter needs to be able to keep track of the number of un- acknowledged LSPs it has sent to a given LSP receiver." To " In order for the LSP Burst Size to be a useful parameter, an LSP transmitter needs to be able to keep track of the number of un- acknowledged LSPs it has sent to a given LSP receiver." I don’t agree with this. 6.2.1.1 has text specific for receiving LSPs " without an intervening delay". 6.2.2.2 does not have that text - though maybe it should. I think to fully address your concern, we need to make 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.2.2 more analogous - which will require some additional changes. I am open to this - Bruno - what do you think? I also agree with changing "Receive Window sub-TLV" to " LSP Receive Window sub-TLV". Definitely improves consistency in naming. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 9:42 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Cc: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <bruno.decra...@orange.com>; John > Scudder <j...@juniper.net>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; > gsoli...@protonmail.com; Antoni Przygienda <p...@juniper.net>; Gunter van > de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; Marek Karasek > (mkarasek) <mkara...@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-05 > > > > > On Feb 1, 2024, at 12:33 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
