IGP Flooding Optimization Methods
draft-peng-lsr-igp-flooding-opt-methods-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-08-19
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html 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)
LSR WG                                                      Shaofu. Peng
Internet-Draft                                              Zheng. Zhang
Intended status: Standards Track                         ZTE Corporation
Expires: February 20, 2020                               August 19, 2019

                   IGP Flooding Optimization Methods
               draft-peng-lsr-igp-flooding-opt-methods-00

Abstract

   This document mainly describe a method to optimize IGP flooding by
   visited record, the visited record information could be encapsulated
   in outer carring header, or as a part of IGP PDU.

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
   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 February 20, 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.

Peng & Zhang            Expires February 20, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          IGP Flooding Optimization            August 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Solutions begin First Established Phase . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  BIER based IGP flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  BIER Encapsulation Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.3.  IGP Capability Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.4.  Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
         2.1.4.1.  Local Generated Link State Data . . . . . . . . .   5
         2.1.4.2.  Remote Generated Link State Data  . . . . . . . .   5
         2.1.4.3.  Not Directly Connected Neighbors in Tier-based
                   Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
         2.1.4.4.  Error Correction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.5.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
         2.1.6.1.  A Sparse Network Example  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         2.1.6.2.  A Tier-based Densy Network Example  . . . . . . .   9
         2.1.6.3.  A Fullmesh Densy Network Example  . . . . . . . .  10
     2.2.  IGP Extensions to Record Visited Nodes  . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Solutions after First Established Phase . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   IGP flooding issue of densy networks such as spine-leaf, Clos, or Fat
   Tree topology has get creased attentions and solution seeking.
   Conventional IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 all perform redundantly
   flooding information throughout the dense topology, leading to
   overloaded control plane inputs and thereby creating operational
   issues.

   [I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding] has ananylized the issues and
   described a common solution to build a sparse FT (Flooding Topology)
   dedicated to link state packet flooding.  However it is a bit complex
   to cover all sceneries to compute an optimal FT to reduce the
   redundancy flooding, sometimes it need a rollback to traditional
   flooding rules to guarantee function correct and have to abandon
   performance.  Implementors have to consider too many type of events
   that maybe affect the FT based flooding behavior with special careful
   detail treatment per specific event.  For example, in some cases both
   a new FT and an old FT need work together, in some cases a temporary
   flooding on non-FT link is needed.

Peng & Zhang            Expires February 20, 2020               [Page 2]
Show full document text