Hi, Mike: We double check the difference between our draft and the RFC 5715, and read the paper of [OPT] again.
Yes, their concepts are similar. The section 6.1 of RFC5715 point out the "incremental cost advertisement" is a possible method, and our draft provides an algorithm in detail for this method. Compare with paper of [OPT], I think there are some differences. The paper: 1. tries to get a metric adjustment sequence(RMS) for each possible destination, and then optimizes this sequence to ORMS. 2. combines these ORMSs and prunes unnecessary metrics. As implementers, we compose the draft in a style that it is easily to be realized on router platforms. This draft: (1) Calculates a metric adjustment scope(link up), and follows these rules: 1.a) this new metric will make the node i switch to the final best path. 1.b) this new metric doesn't make other unaffected nodes switch their paths. (2) Base on the RSPF of linkup and RSPF of linkdown, calculates the best metric adjustment sequence in just one round. So, we think the overhead of the algorithm in the draft can be less since it calculates the SPF only twice. -----邮件原件----- 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 [email protected] 发送时间: 2013年10月22日 17:20 收件人: [email protected] 主题: rtgwg Digest, Vol 106, Issue 37 If you have received this digest without all the individual message attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list subscription. To do so, go to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. Send rtgwg mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rtgwg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 (Yangang) 2. Re: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 (Acee Lindem) 3. ??: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 (Yangang) 4. Re: ??: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 (Mike Shand) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 01:30:23 +0000 From: Yangang <[email protected]> To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Cc: "Zhangxudong \(zhangxudong, VRP\)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 Message-ID: <d496c972d1a13540a730720631ec73413a39e...@nkgeml507-mbs.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Our draft is similar with section 6.1 in RFC5715, the cost of changed link will be adjusted and advertised, maybe more than one time, this sequence will base on some pre-calculations. But in RFC 6976, each device should calculate the distance with the failue link, base on this distance, each device decide when the FIB will be updated. -----????----- ???: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] ????: 2013?10?21? 10:07 ???: Yangang ??: [email protected]; Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP) ??: Re: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 Can you contrast this with RFC 6976? You include RFC 6976 in the Normative References but it is never referenced (this will show up if you run idnits). Acee On Oct 20, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Yangang wrote: > Hi: > > We had submitted the a new draft: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00, we > want to discuss the micro-loop problem through another method. Your feedback > and comments on the rtgwg mailing list are appreciated. > > Thanks, > Rahul.Yan > > -----????----- > ???: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > ????: 2013?10?18? 15:47 > ???: Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP); Yangang > ??: New Version Notification for > draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt > > > A new version of I-D, draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Xudong Zhang and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment > Revision: 00 > Title: Algorithm for Ordered Metric Adjustment > Creation date: 2013-10-18 > Group: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 10 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt > Status: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment > Htmlized: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 > > > Abstract: > Upon link down event or link up event, each device in network > individually schedules route calculation. Because of different > hardware capabilities and internal/external environments, the time to > update forwarding entries on these devices are disordered which can > cause a transient forwarding loop. This document introduces a method > to prevent forwarding loop by adjusting link metric gradually for > several times. > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 01:41:49 +0000 From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> To: Yangang <[email protected]> Cc: "Zhangxudong \(zhangxudong, VRP\)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I'm aware of the basic premise of the two drafts and was not asking for you to restate the obvious. Specifically, what are the benefits and determents of your draft when compared to RFC 6976? Acee On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Yangang wrote: > Our draft is similar with section 6.1 in RFC5715, the cost of changed link > will be adjusted and advertised, maybe more than one time, this sequence will > base on some pre-calculations. But in RFC 6976, each device should calculate > the distance with the failue link, base on this distance, each device decide > when the FIB will be updated. > > -----????----- > ???: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > ????: 2013?10?21? 10:07 > ???: Yangang > ??: [email protected]; Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP) > ??: Re: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on > draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 > > Can you contrast this with RFC 6976? You include RFC 6976 in the Normative > References but it is never referenced (this will show up if you run idnits). > Acee > On Oct 20, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Yangang wrote: > >> Hi: >> >> We had submitted the a new draft: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00, we >> want to discuss the micro-loop problem through another method. Your feedback >> and comments on the rtgwg mailing list are appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> Rahul.Yan >> >> -----????----- >> ???: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> ????: 2013?10?18? 15:47 >> ???: Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP); Yangang >> ??: New Version Notification for >> draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Xudong Zhang and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Filename: draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment >> Revision: 00 >> Title: Algorithm for Ordered Metric Adjustment >> Creation date: 2013-10-18 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 10 >> URL: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >> Status: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment >> Htmlized: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 >> >> >> Abstract: >> Upon link down event or link up event, each device in network >> individually schedules route calculation. Because of different >> hardware capabilities and internal/external environments, the time to >> update forwarding entries on these devices are disordered which can >> cause a transient forwarding loop. This document introduces a method >> to prevent forwarding loop by adjusting link metric gradually for >> several times. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:39:55 +0000 From: Yangang <[email protected]> To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Cc: "Zhangxudong \(zhangxudong, VRP\)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: ??: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 Message-ID: <d496c972d1a13540a730720631ec73413a39e...@nkgeml507-mbs.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" OK, I got it. Actually, we pay attention to two point: 1. Which method will be more nicety? In RFC6976, all devices in network need calculate the schedule time, base on the different hardware and environment, we worry about its effect. In our draft, only failure point adjust the cost, the other device just response the cost change. I think the effect of this kind of difference will be less. 2. Due to no new extension, maybe the distribution will be more smoothly. -----????----- ???: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] ????: 2013?10?22? 9:42 ???: Yangang ??: [email protected]; Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP) ??: Re: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 I'm aware of the basic premise of the two drafts and was not asking for you to restate the obvious. Specifically, what are the benefits and determents of your draft when compared to RFC 6976? Acee On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Yangang wrote: > Our draft is similar with section 6.1 in RFC5715, the cost of changed link > will be adjusted and advertised, maybe more than one time, this sequence will > base on some pre-calculations. But in RFC 6976, each device should calculate > the distance with the failue link, base on this distance, each device decide > when the FIB will be updated. > > -----????----- > ???: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > ????: 2013?10?21? 10:07 > ???: Yangang > ??: [email protected]; Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP) > ??: Re: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on > draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 > > Can you contrast this with RFC 6976? You include RFC 6976 in the Normative > References but it is never referenced (this will show up if you run idnits). > Acee > On Oct 20, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Yangang wrote: > >> Hi: >> >> We had submitted the a new draft: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00, we >> want to discuss the micro-loop problem through another method. Your feedback >> and comments on the rtgwg mailing list are appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> Rahul.Yan >> >> -----????----- >> ???: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> ????: 2013?10?18? 15:47 >> ???: Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP); Yangang >> ??: New Version Notification for >> draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Xudong Zhang and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Filename: draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment >> Revision: 00 >> Title: Algorithm for Ordered Metric Adjustment >> Creation date: 2013-10-18 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 10 >> URL: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >> Status: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment >> Htmlized: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 >> >> >> Abstract: >> Upon link down event or link up event, each device in network >> individually schedules route calculation. Because of different >> hardware capabilities and internal/external environments, the time to >> update forwarding entries on these devices are disordered which can >> cause a transient forwarding loop. This document introduces a method >> to prevent forwarding loop by adjusting link metric gradually for >> several times. >> >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:20:11 +0100 From: Mike Shand <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ??: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed So you have described the difference with OFIB (RFC 6976), but how does your proposal differ from "incremental cost advertisement" as described in RFC 5715 section 6.1? Mike On 22/10/2013 04:39, Yangang wrote: > OK, I got it. > > Actually, we pay attention to two point: > > 1. Which method will be more nicety? In RFC6976, all devices in network need > calculate the schedule time, base on the different hardware and environment, > we worry about its effect. In our draft, only failure point adjust the cost, > the other device just response the cost change. I think the effect of this > kind of difference will be less. > > 2. Due to no new extension, maybe the distribution will be more smoothly. > > -----????----- > ???: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] > ????: 2013?10?22? 9:42 > ???: Yangang > ??: [email protected]; Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP) > ??: Re: ??: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on > draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 > > I'm aware of the basic premise of the two drafts and was not asking for you > to restate the obvious. Specifically, what are the benefits and determents of > your draft when compared to RFC 6976? > Acee > > On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Yangang wrote: > >> Our draft is similar with section 6.1 in RFC5715, the cost of changed link >> will be adjusted and advertised, maybe more than one time, this sequence >> will base on some pre-calculations. But in RFC 6976, each device should >> calculate the distance with the failue link, base on this distance, each >> device decide when the FIB will be updated. >> >> -----????----- >> ???: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] >> ????: 2013?10?21? 10:07 >> ???: Yangang >> ??: [email protected]; Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP) >> ??: Re: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on >> draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 >> >> Can you contrast this with RFC 6976? You include RFC 6976 in the Normative >> References but it is never referenced (this will show up if you run idnits). >> Acee >> On Oct 20, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Yangang wrote: >> >>> Hi: >>> >>> We had submitted the a new draft: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00, we >>> want to discuss the micro-loop problem through another method. Your >>> feedback and comments on the rtgwg mailing list are appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rahul.Yan >>> >>> -----????----- >>> ???: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>> ????: 2013?10?18? 15:47 >>> ???: Zhangxudong (zhangxudong, VRP); Yangang >>> ??: New Version Notification for >>> draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >>> >>> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >>> has been successfully submitted by Xudong Zhang and posted to the >>> IETF repository. >>> >>> Filename: draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment >>> Revision: 00 >>> Title: Algorithm for Ordered Metric Adjustment >>> Creation date: 2013-10-18 >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> Number of pages: 10 >>> URL: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00.txt >>> Status: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment >>> Htmlized: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00 >>> >>> >>> Abstract: >>> Upon link down event or link up event, each device in network >>> individually schedules route calculation. Because of different >>> hardware capabilities and internal/external environments, the time to >>> update forwarding entries on these devices are disordered which can >>> cause a transient forwarding loop. This document introduces a method >>> to prevent forwarding loop by adjusting link metric gradually for >>> several times. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> The IETF Secretariat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtgwg mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg End of rtgwg Digest, Vol 106, Issue 37 ************************************** _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
