draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-07.txt   draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-08.txt 
LSVR K. Patel LSVR K. Patel
Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc. Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.
Intended status: Informational A. Lindem Intended status: Informational A. Lindem
Expires: March 25, 2021 Cisco Systems Expires: September 26, 2021 Cisco Systems
S. Zandi S. Zandi
G. Dawra G. Dawra
Linkedin Linkedin
September 21, 2020 March 25, 2021
Usage and Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Centers Usage and Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Centers
draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-07 draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-08
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses the usage and applicability of Link State This document discusses the usage and applicability of Link State
Vector Routing (LSVR) extensions in data center networks utilizing Vector Routing (LSVR) extensions in data center networks utilizing
CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide a CLOS or Fat-Tree topologies. The document is intended to provide a
simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR extensions. simplified guide for the deployment of LSVR extensions.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 March 25, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at page 7, line 8
In current data center topologies, there is often a very dense mesh In current data center topologies, there is often a very dense mesh
of links between levels, e.g., leaf and spine, providing 32-way, of links between levels, e.g., leaf and spine, providing 32-way,
64-way, or more Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) paths. In these 64-way, or more Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) paths. In these
topologies, it is desirable not to have a BGP session on every link topologies, it is desirable not to have a BGP session on every link
and techniques such as the one described in Section 6.2.2 can be used and techniques such as the one described in Section 6.2.2 can be used
establish sessions on some subset of northbound links. For example, establish sessions on some subset of northbound links. For example,
in a Spine-Leaf topology, each leaf switch would only peer with a in a Spine-Leaf topology, each leaf switch would only peer with a
subset of the spines dependent on the flooding redundancy required to subset of the spines dependent on the flooding redundancy required to
be reasonably certain that every node within the BGP-LS SPF routing be reasonably certain that every node within the BGP-LS SPF routing
domain has the complete topology. domain has the complete topology (refer to Section 6.2.1).
Alternately, controller-based data center topologies are envisioned Alternately, controller-based data center topologies are envisioned
where BGP speakers within the data center only establish BGP sessions where BGP speakers within the data center only establish BGP sessions
with two or more controllers. In these topologies, fabric nodes with two or more controllers. In these topologies, fabric nodes
below the first tier (using [RFC7938] hierarchy) will establish BGP below the first tier (using [RFC7938] hierarchy) will establish BGP
multi-hop sessions with the controllers. For the multi-hop sessions, multi-hop sessions with the controllers. For the multi-hop sessions,
determining the route to the controllers without depending on BGP determining the route to the controllers without depending on BGP
would need to be through some other means beyond the scope of this would need to be through some other means beyond the scope of this
document. However, the BGP discovery mechanisms described in document. However, the BGP discovery mechanisms described in
Section 6.5 would be one possibility. Section 6.5 would be one possibility.
skipping to change at page 11, line 44 skipping to change at page 11, line 44
12. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana, Yan Filyurin, and The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana, Yan Filyurin, and
Boris Hassanov for their review and comments. Boris Hassanov for their review and comments.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]
Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx, Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx, "BGP
"Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol", Link-State Shortest Path First (SPF) Routing", draft-ietf-
draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-11 (work in progress), August lsvr-bgp-spf-12 (work in progress), January 2021.
2020.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[CLOS] "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks", The Bell [CLOS] "A Study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks", The Bell
System Technical Journal, Vol. 32(2), DOI System Technical Journal, Vol. 32(2), DOI
10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March 1953. 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March 1953.
[I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery] [I-D.acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery]
Lindem, A., Patel, K., Zandi, S., Haas, J., and X. Xu, Lindem, A., Patel, K., Zandi, S., Haas, J., and X. Xu,
"BGP Logical Link Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Peer "BGP Logical Link Discovery Protocol (LLDP) Peer
Discovery", draft-acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery-07 (work in Discovery", draft-acee-idr-lldp-peer-discovery-08 (work in
progress), June 2020. progress), December 2020.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
(work in progress), June 2019. (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding] [I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]
Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Chen, H., Przygienda, Li, T., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Chen, H., Przygienda,
T., Cooper, D., Jalil, L., Dontula, S., and G. Mishra, T., Cooper, D., Jalil, L., Dontula, S., and G. Mishra,
"Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr- "Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs", draft-ietf-lsr-
dynamic-flooding-07 (work in progress), June 2020. dynamic-flooding-08 (work in progress), December 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl] [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl]
Bush, R., Austein, R., and K. Patel, "Layer 3 Discovery Bush, R., Austein, R., and K. Patel, "Layer 3 Discovery
and Liveness", draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-06 (work in progress), and Liveness", draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-07 (work in progress),
July 2020. January 2021.
[I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery] [I-D.xu-idr-neighbor-autodiscovery]
Xu, X., Talaulikar, K., Bi, K., Tantsura, J., and N. Xu, X., Talaulikar, K., Bi, K., Tantsura, J., and N.
Triantafillis, "BGP Neighbor Discovery", draft-xu-idr- Triantafillis, "BGP Neighbor Discovery", draft-xu-idr-
neighbor-autodiscovery-12 (work in progress), November neighbor-autodiscovery-12 (work in progress), November
2019. 2019.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 14 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/