Hi Chris and Co-authors,
Something to this spirit before the last bullet point in Section 2.
o SPF computation order: A SPF trigger can be common to multiple IGP
areas or levels (e.g., IS-IS Level1/Level2) or
for multiple address families with multi-topologies. There is no
specified order for SPF computation today and
it is implementation dependent. In such scenarios, if the order of SPF
computation done
in A and B for each area/level/topology/SPF-algorithm is different,
there is a
possibility for a micro-loop to appear.
BR,
--
Uma C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Bowers [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:49 PM
To: Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>
Cc: RTGWG <[email protected]>; rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Uma,
Could you propose some specific text to add to the document to address your
comment?
Thanks,
Chris
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> wrote:
> Support and have a following comment and want to see this addressed.
>
>
>
> Section 2:
>
>
>
> I saw SPF computation time has been discussed, while it is true this
> is relatively a smaller issue when compared to mismatch in SPF delay
> with different trigger algos across various vendors; it depends on the
> size of the network + mix of legacy and new nodes.
>
> Any ways, my comment:
>
> I would like to see add one more bullet point with regard to SPF
> computation order impact on the micro loops for a trigger i.e., a
> trigger which is common to multiple levels/areas, multiple topologies
> and multiple SPF-algorithms (in extreme case).
>
> There is no specified order today and its implementation dependent
> and IMO this too would be a significant contributor (of course, not
> asking to specify the order here) and visible once the SPF
> delay/trigger-algo issue is fixed across. So this is worth being listed here.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Uma C.
>
>
>
> From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:19 AM
> To: RTGWG <[email protected]>
> Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]>
> Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
>
>
>
> RTGWG,
>
> This email starts the two week WG last call for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-stateme
> nt/
>
>
> Please indicate support for or opposition to the publication of this
>
> informational document, along with the reasoning behind that support
> or
>
> opposition.
>
>
>
> IPR:
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond
> to
>
> this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
> The
>
> response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will
>
> not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from
>
> each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.
>
>
>
> This last call will end on Thursday, December 21st.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris and Jeff
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
