Hello Stephane, Mike, and group,
just one comment (see below) since I get to see more and more different
networks from the operator's point of view.
Am 11.05.15 um 16:22 schrieb [email protected]:
4. " Routers have more and more powerful controlplane and dataplane that
reduce the Control plane to Forwarding plane overhead during the
convergence process. Even if FIB update is still reasonably the
highest contributor in the convergence time for large network, its
duration is reducing more and more and may become comparable to
protocol timers. This is particular true in small and medium
networks."
I don't understand what is meant by "may become comparable to protocol
timers"? Are you suggesting that the FIB update latency WAS greater
than the protocol timers, but has now been reduced to a comparable value?
[SLI] Right, even if it may be not true for all the networks, this
tends to be the case
The reference to small and medium networks is also confusing, since in
my experience it is actually the small and medium networks which are
subject to the LARGEST FIB update times as a result of the deployment
of under powered hardware.
[SLI] Yes and no …
I may say that small/medium networks have less powerful hardware, but
also less routes (except badly designed networks J). Large network
have more powerful hardware but more routes to handle.
This really depends on many corner conditions such as exact choice and
age of hardware, network design in term of topology and routing
architecture and, of course, size of the network.
While it might be possible for a small or medium sized network with a
very clean design, a small number of internal routes, and modern
hardware to have a very fast FIB update, there are numerous reasons why
this could fail: old hardware or software, network design which includes
many parts of the aggregation, access and service generation area in the
IGP, and/or routing architectures which for one reason or the other
include some service routes in the IGP.
For very large networks on the other hand it will definitely not be
possible to keep FIB updates very fast.
IMHO it would be a good idea to remove the reference to the size of the
network. And don't even try to specify which kind of network has shorter
or longer FIB update times. Just indicate that depending on size and
exact design of a network it MAY have short FIB updates times, but make
clear that by no means this is always the case.
Best regards, Martin
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
