On 25/01/2018 18:59, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Stewart -
*From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 AM
*To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<a...@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* OSPF List <o...@ietf.org>; isis-wg@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
Les
I agree wrt L2
Isn't another focus collecting the information to feed into an SDN
controller via BGP-LS? That is really network layer state collection
rather than routing in the traditional sense.
*/[Les:] Please do not propose such language. This raises the old
discussion about using the IGPs as a transport for “just about
anything”./*
*/We long ago agreed that TE related information was “routing
information” – if for no other reason than it was grandfathered in.
But this does not alter the IGP’s focus on routing./*
*/I know we “stretch” the definition with things like MSD and S-BFD
discriminators, but I see these as carefully considered choices – and
ones w modest impact./*
*/Institutionalizing the IGPs as an “SDN Distribution Protocol” is not
something I want in the charter./*
*/Les/*
*//*
Hi Les,
I don't see it quite like that.
I don't think we flood a lot of the SDN specific information do we? We
just use the LSP data structures as a convenient encoding, and
supplement the information we flood with additional information.
If we were flooding it I would share your concern, but I don't see the
reuse of the syntax which is what BGP-LS does as quite such a problem.
Am I missing something here?
- Stewart
- Stewart
On 24/01/2018 23:09, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
It occurred to me after sending this that perhaps a better
statement as regards IS-IS would be:
“LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 and Layer 2 routing…”
though admittedly there isn’t much going on as regards Layer2 and
IS-IS at the moment.
Les
*From:*Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
*Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:33 PM
*To:* Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>
<mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<a...@cisco.com> <mailto:a...@cisco.com>; Alia Atlas
<akat...@gmail.com> <mailto:akat...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* OSPF List <o...@ietf.org> <mailto:o...@ietf.org>;
isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
Since a charter only provides a general definition of the work
that falls within the purview of the WG it requires some adjunct
to keep track of the current priorities.
That could be the list of milestones (which OSPF has regularly
maintained – but IS-IS has not) – or it could simply be the list
of active WG documents.
I just don’t see that we should expect the charter to express
“work in progress” now – or in the future.
Alia – do you think the statement about IS-IS:
“LSR’s work is focused on IP routing…”
Could be improved by saying
“LSR’s work is focused on IP/IPv6 routing…”
???
Les
*From:*Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
*Stewart Bryant
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2018 10:01 AM
*To:* Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>>;
Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com <mailto:akat...@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* OSPF List <o...@ietf.org <mailto:o...@ietf.org>>;
isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
Yes that fixes that.
How about:
s/The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/ In
addition to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected
to be an initial focus:/
I am just concerned that we need not to loose focus on work in
progress.
- Stewart
On 24/01/2018 17:54, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
How about:
LSR will coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to
the LSR IGPs as
applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale.
Thanks,
Acee
*From: *Isis-wg
<isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org><mailto:isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org>on
behalf of Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com><mailto:akat...@gmail.com>
*Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
*To: *Stewart Bryant
<stewart.bry...@gmail.com><mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>
*Cc: *OSPF WG List <o...@ietf.org><mailto:o...@ietf.org>,
"isis-wg@ietf.org"<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org><isis-wg@ietf.org><mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for the quick feedback. Feel free to provide
suggestions for text changes if you have them.
You've certainly written enough charters :-)
Regards,
Alia
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant
<stewart.bry...@gmail.com<mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Alia,
I think that this merger is long overdue, and hopefully it
will help new features to be written in an aligned way.
I think the remit to perform general maintenance should
slightly clarified since the way the charter is written
they look like they are at a lower priority than the
enumerated list.
I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP
and BIER on their extensions " should have been more
directive.
- Stewart
On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote:
Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group
that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups.
This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG
telechat on February 8.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/
The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is
chartered to document current protocol implementation
practices and improvements, protocol usage scenarios,
maintenance and extensions of link-state routing
interior gateway protocols (IGPs) with a focus on
IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3. The LSR Working Group is
formed by merging the isis and ospf WGs and will take
on all their existing adopted work at the time of
chartering.
IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO
through ISO 10589:2002 and additional RFC standards
with extensions to support IP that has been deployed
in the Internet for decades. For the IS-IS protocol,
LSR’s work is focused on IP routing, currently based
on the agreement in RFC 3563 with ISO/JTC1/SC6. The
LSR WG will interact with other standards bodies that
have responsible for standardizing IS-IS.
OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has
been deployed in the Internet for decades. OSPFv3
[RFC5340 and extensions] provides OSPF for IPv6 and
IPv4 [RFC5838] which can be delivered over IPv6 or
IPv4 [RFC 7949].
The LSR Working Group will generally manage its
specific work items by milestones agreed with the
responsible Area Director.
The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:
1) Improving OSPF support for IPv6 and extensions
using OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility.
2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and
associated architectural changes
3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and
extensions
4) Extensions for source-destination routing
[draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
5) Potentially, extensions to better support specific
network topologies such as
ones commonly used in data centers.
The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will
coordinate with other working groups, such as RTGWG,
SPRING, MPLS, TEAS, V6OPS, and 6MAN, to understand the
need for extensions and to confirm that the planned
work meets the needs. LSR can coordinate with CCAMP
and BIER on their extensions to the LSR IGPs as
useful. LSR may coordinate with other WGs as needed.
Regards,
Alia
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org<mailto:Isis-wg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
