OSPF Flooding Reduction in Massively Scale Data Centers (MSDCs)
draft-xu-lsr-ospf-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-10-14
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized 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 14, 2020                                     Expedia, Inc
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                            Apstra, Inc.
                                                                   S. Ma
                                                                 Juniper
                                                        October 12, 2019

    OSPF Flooding Reduction in Massively Scale Data Centers (MSDCs)
            draft-xu-lsr-ospf-flooding-reduction-in-msdc-03

Abstract

   OSPF is one of the used 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 presence of too many OSPF
   neighbors for each OSPF router within the CLOS topology.  This
   document proposes extensions to OSPF so as to reduce the OSPF
   flooding within such MSDC networks.  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 April 14, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                              October 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 April 14, 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Modifications to Legacy 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.  MSDCs are also called Large-Scale Data Centers.

   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
   significantly wastes the precious process resource of OSPF routers
   and therefore OSPF could not scale very well in MSDC networks.

Xu, et al.               Expires April 14, 2020                 [Page 2]
Show full document text