OSPF Flooding Reduction in MSDC
draft-xu-lsr-ospf-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-02

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02

Network Working Group                                              X. Xu
Internet-Draft                                              Alibaba, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track                                 L. Fang
Expires: October 24, 2019                                   Expedia, Inc
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                            Apstra, Inc.
                                                                   S. Ma
                                                                 Juniper
                                                          April 22, 2019

                    OSPF Flooding Reduction in MSDC
            draft-xu-lsr-ospf-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-02

Abstract

   OSPF is commonly used as an underlay routing protocol for MSDC
   (Massively Scalable Data Center) networks.  For a given OSPF router
   within the CLOS topology, it would receive multiple copies of exactly
   the same LSA from multiple OSPF neighbors.  In addition, two OSPF
   neighbors may send each other the same LSA simultaneously.  The
   unnecessary link-state information flooding wastes the precious
   process resource of OSPF routers greatly due to the fact that there
   are too many OSPF neighbors for each OSPF router within the CLOS
   topology.  This document proposes some extensions to OSPF so as to
   reduce the OSPF flooding within MSDC networks greatly.  The reduction
   of the OSPF flooding is much beneficial to improve the scalability of
   MSDC networks.  These modifications are applicable to both OSPFv2 and
   OSPFv3.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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

Xu, et al.              Expires October 24, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                                April 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 October 24, 2019.

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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Modifications to Current OSPF Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  OSPF Routers as Non-DRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Controllers as DR/BDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   OSPF is commonly used as an underlay routing protocol for Massively
   Scalable Data Center (MSDC) networks where CLOS is the most popular
   topology.  For a given OSPF router within the CLOS topology, it would
   receive multiple copies of exactly the same LSA from multiple OSPF
   neighbors.  In addition, two OSPF neighbors may send each other the
   same LSA simultaneously.  The unnecessary link-state information
   flooding wastes the precious process resource of OSPF routers greatly
   and therefore OSPF could not scale very well in MSDC networks.

   To simplify the network management task, centralized controllers are
   becoming fundamental network elements in most MSDCs.  One or more