IS-IS Flooding Speed advertisement
draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                        B. Decraene
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Bowers
Expires: January 6, 2020                                       Jayesh. J
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                                   T. Li
                                                         Arista Networks
                                                         G. Van de Velde
                                                                   Nokia
                                                            July 5, 2019

                   IS-IS Flooding Speed advertisement
               draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed-01

Abstract

   This document proposes a mechanism that can be used to increase the
   speed at which link state information is flooded across a network
   when multiple LSPDUs need to be flooded, such as in case of a node
   failure.  It also reduces the likelihood of overloading the
   downstream flooding neighbors.  This document defines a new TLV to be
   advertised in IS-IS Hello messages.  This TLV carries two parameters
   indicating the performance capacity to receive LSPDUs: the minimum
   delay between two consecutive LSPDUs and the number of LSPDUs which
   can the received back to back.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
   appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Decraene, et al.         Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     IS-IS Flooding Speed advertisement          July 2019

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Flooding Speed TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Interaction with other LSPDU rate limiting mechanisms . . . .   6
   5.  Determining values to be advertised in the Flooding Speed TLV   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Changes / Author Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   IGP flooding is paramount for Link State IGP as routing computations
   assume that the Link State DataBases (LSDBs) are always in sync
   across all nodes in the flooding domain.

   Slow flooding directly translates to delayed network reaction to
   failure and LSDB inconsistencies across nodes.  The former increases
   packets losses.  The latter translates to routing inconsistencies and
   micro-loops leading to packets losses, link(s) overload, and jitter
   for all classes of services.  Note that the link(s) affected by those
   forwarding issues may be any link in the network and not necessarely
   the links whose IGP status has changed.

Decraene, et al.         Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     IS-IS Flooding Speed advertisement          July 2019

   IGP flooding is hard.  One would want fast flooding when the network
Show full document text