IS-IS Flooding Reduction in MSDC
draft-xu-lsr-isis-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-10-18
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml 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)
Network Working Group                                              X. Xu
Internet-Draft                                              Alibaba, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track                                 L. Fang
Expires: April 21, 2019                                     Expedia, Inc
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                            Apstra, Inc.
                                                                   S. Ma
                                                                 Juniper
                                                        October 18, 2018

                    IS-IS Flooding Reduction in MSDC
            draft-xu-lsr-isis-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-01

Abstract

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

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 April 21, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                              October 2018

   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 April 21, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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 IS-IS Behaviors  . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  IS-IS Routers as Non-DIS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Controllers as DIS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

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

Xu, et al.               Expires April 21, 2019                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                                              October 2018
Show full document text