Hi Jeff,
On 24/08/18 00:59 , Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Peter,
As previously stated - I'm against gating, it should be developed in parallel
and with cooperation with the ongoing/existing work.
Note - there's a document (albeit expired, it played its role) that talks about
generic DC Routing requirements, work in LSR would be scooped to LSR only.
So no going into religious discussions - new vs old/ls vs pv, etc, but focusing
on ospf/isis and what is needed for DC specifically.
I think it would be good to do some gain/complexity mental exercise...
fair enough. I'm willing to contribute.
thanks,
Peter
Cheers,
Jeff
On 8/23/18, 02:05, "Peter Psenak" <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote:
Jeff, All,
we have added many extensions to IGP protocols over the years. Many
times multiple solutions were proposed for the same or similar problem
and WG picked from the set, many times multiple solutions were merged or
combined together. We never asked for a requirement document. Even for
more significant changes then we are talking about here.
I understand that the area of DC routing using IGPs is a broader area,
but it does not fundamentally change IGPs to warrant the need for
requirement document as a prerequisite to move forward with any work
that is related to any optimization that may be applicable to DC
environment.
So while I'm not against the existence of the document that would cover
the requirements for IGPs in DC environments , I don't believe we should
gate all proposed work in this space by such a document. And to be
completely honest, the requirements are pretty straightforward for
anyone that is familiar with the protocols' operation.
my 2c,
Peter
On 22/08/18 18:42 , Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> +1 Tony
>
> We could start with a document, similar to dc-routing requirements one
> we did in RTGWG before chartering RIFT and LSVR.
> Would help to disambiguate requirements from claims and have apple to
> apple comparison.
> Doing it on github was a good experience.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 09:27, Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com
> <mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> At IETF 102, there was no dearth of flooding reduction proposals. In
>>> fact, we have so many proposals that there wasn’t agree as how to
>>> move forward and we agreed to discuss on the list. This Email is to
>>> initiate that discussion (which I intend to participate in but as a
>>> WG member).
>>
>>
>> Hi Acee,
>>
>> Perhaps a useful starting point of the discussion is to talk about
>> requirements. There seem to many different perceptions.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>> https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
