< draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction-00.txt		draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction-01.txt >
	Network Working Group H. Chen		Network Working Group H. Chen
	Internet-Draft D. Cheng		Internet-Draft D. Cheng
	Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies		Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
	Expires: September 6, 2018 M. Toy		Expires: October 31, 2018 M. Toy
	Verizon		Verizon
	Y. Yang		Y. Yang
	IBM		IBM
	March 5, 2018		April 29, 2018
	ISIS Flooding Reduction		ISIS Flooding Reduction
	draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction-00		draft-cc-isis-flooding-reduction-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document proposes an approach to flood ISIS link state protocol		This document proposes an approach to flood ISIS link state protocol
	data units on a topology that is a subgraph of the complete ISIS		data units on a topology that is a subgraph of the complete ISIS
	topology per underline physical network, so that the amount of		topology per underline physical network, so that the amount of
	flooding traffic in the network is greatly reduced, and it would		flooding traffic in the network is greatly reduced, and it would
	reduce convergence time with a more stable and optimized routing		reduce convergence time with a more stable and optimized routing
	environment. The approach can be applied to any network topology in		environment. The approach can be applied to any network topology in
	a single ISIS area.		a single ISIS area.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶
	5. Flooding Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Flooding Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.1. Nodes Support Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1. Nodes Support Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.1.1. Receiving an ISIS LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1.1. Receiving an ISIS LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.1.2. Originating an ISIS LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.1.2. Originating an ISIS LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.1.3. An Exception Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.1.3. An Exception Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.1.4. One More Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.1.4. One More Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.2. Nodes Not Support Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.2. Nodes Not Support Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Appendix A. Algorithms to Build Flooding Topology . . . . . . . . 10		Appendix A. Algorithms to Build Flooding Topology . . . . . . . . 10
	A.1. Algorithms to Build Tree without Considering Flag F . . . 10		A.1. Algorithms to Build Tree without Considering Flag F . . . 10
	A.2. Algorithms to Build Tree Considering Flag F . . . . . . . 11		A.2. Algorithms to Build Tree Considering Flag F . . . . . . . 12
	A.3. Connecting Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		A.3. Connecting Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	For some networks such as dense Data Center (DC) networks, the		For some networks such as dense Data Center (DC) networks, the
	existing ISIS Link State PDU (LSP) flooding mechanism is not		existing ISIS Link State PDU (LSP) flooding mechanism is not
	efficient and may have some issues. The extra LSP flooding consumes		efficient and may have some issues. The extra LSP flooding consumes
	network bandwidth. Processing the extra LSP flooding, including		network bandwidth. Processing the extra LSP flooding, including
	receiving, buffering and decoding the extra LSPs, wastes memory space		receiving, buffering and decoding the extra LSPs, wastes memory space
	and processor time. This may cause scalability issues and affect the		and processor time. This may cause scalability issues and affect the
	network convergence negatively.		network convergence negatively.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 42 ¶
	2. Otherwise, the LSP is transmitted to all ISIS interfaces.		2. Otherwise, the LSP is transmitted to all ISIS interfaces.
	Choosing this action instead of limiting to links on flooding		Choosing this action instead of limiting to links on flooding
	topology would speed up the synchronization around the		topology would speed up the synchronization around the
	advertising node's neighbors, which could then disseminate the		advertising node's neighbors, which could then disseminate the
	new LSP quickly.		new LSP quickly.
	5.1.3. An Exception Case		5.1.3. An Exception Case
	In Section 5.1.1 and Section 5.1.2, there are times when an ISIS node		In Section 5.1.1 and Section 5.1.2, there are times when an ISIS node
	sending out a LSP to an interface on the flooding topology detects an		sending out a LSP to an interface on the flooding topology detects a
	interface or node failure. Note the flooding topology was pre-		critical interface or node failure. A critical interface is an
	computed/pre-constructed; but if at the time the interface or the		interface on the flooding topology and is the only connection among
	neighboring node goes down before a re-newed flooding topology can be		some nodes on the flooding topology. When this interface goes down,
	computed/constructed, the node MUST send out the LSP to all		the flooding topology will be split. Note the flooding topology was
			pre-computed/pre-constructed; but if at the time a critical interface
			or a node goes down before a re-newed flooding topology can be
			computed/constructed, the ISIS node MUST send out the LSP to all
	interfaces (except where it is received from) as a traditional ISIS		interfaces (except where it is received from) as a traditional ISIS
	node would do. This handling is also taking place if there are more		node would do. This handling is also taking place if there are more
	than one egress interfaces on the existing flooding topology, i.e.,		than one interfaces or nodes on the existing flooding topology fail,
	if at least one egress interface or neighboring node fails, the ISIS		i.e., if more than one interfaces or nodes on the flooding topology
	node does traditional flooding before the flooding topology is re-		fail, the ISIS node does traditional flooding before the flooding
	built.		topology is re-built.
	5.1.4. One More Note		5.1.4. One More Note
	The destination address that is used when an ISIS node sends out a		The destination address that is used when an ISIS node sends out a
	LSP on an interface on its flooding topology follows the		LSP on an interface on its flooding topology follows the
	specification in ISIS ([RFC1195]). This means on a local LAN, all		specification in ISIS ([RFC1195]). This means on a local LAN, all
	other ISIS nodes will receive the LSP.		other ISIS nodes will receive the LSP.
	5.2. Nodes Not Support Flooding Reduction		5.2. Nodes Not Support Flooding Reduction
	skipping to change at page 9, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 39 ¶
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	This document does not introduce any security issue.		This document does not introduce any security issue.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	This document has no request to IANA.		This document has no request to IANA.
	8. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	TBD.		The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Zhibo Hu, Robin Li,
			Stephane Litkowski and Alvaro Retana for their valuable suggestions
			and comments on this draft.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and		[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
	dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,		dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
	December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.		December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
	RFC2119, March 1997,		RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[I-D.li-dynamic-flooding]		[I-D.li-dynamic-flooding]
	Li, T., "An Architecture for Dynamic Flooding on Dense		Li, T., "Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs",
	Graphs", draft-li-dynamic-flooding-02 (work in progress),		draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04 (work in progress),
	March 2018.		March 2018.
	[I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext]		[I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext]
	Shen, N., Ginsberg, L., and S. Thyamagundalu, "IS-IS		Shen, N., Ginsberg, L., and S. Thyamagundalu, "IS-IS
	Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology",		Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology",
	draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-05 (work in progress),		draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-05 (work in progress),
	January 2018.		January 2018.
	Appendix A. Algorithms to Build Flooding Topology		Appendix A. Algorithms to Build Flooding Topology
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	21 lines changed or deleted		25 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/