Routing Timer Parameter Synchronization
draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-03
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (candidate for rtgwg WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-08-09
(latest revision 2017-08-02)
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
Call For Adoption By WG Issued
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group S. Bryant
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track A. Atlas
Expires: February 3, 2018 C. Bowers
Juniper Networks
August 02, 2017
Routing Timer Parameter Synchronization
draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-03
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for a link state routing protocol
to coordinate the value of a routing timer parameter amongst routers
in the flooding domain. The document also defines the solution to
one specific case: the agreement of a common convergence timer value
for use by routers in network convergence.
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 http://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 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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
Bryant, et al. Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Routing Timer Parameter Sync August 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Required Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Definition of the Convergence Timer . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Routing Timer Parameter Synchronization Registry . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
There exist use cases where it desirable for a network to use a
common value for a routing timer parameter across all nodes. In the
past, these types of use case have been addressed by setting the
parameter to a constant value in the protocol definition itself, or
by requiring that the same value of the parameter be configured at
every node.
Setting the routing timer parameter to a constant value in the
protocol definition makes it difficult to change the parameter, since
a change would require formal modification to the protocol. In
practice, such a change is impractical, so the constant value needs
to be chosen conservatively. This may impose a fundamental
restriction on the eventual use of the protocol.
Manual or "static" configuration of the timer parameter is fraught
for two reasons. First, it is can be difficult to ensure that the
Show full document text