Hi Robert, On 03/02/2019 21:37 , Robert Raszuk wrote:
I fully agree and support proceeding with draft-li-dyanmic-flooding and to include protocol extensions in it for centralized topology propagation as well as basic hooks like "execute dynamic protocol number X" for distributed calculations. However one may observe that separate distributed algorithms may define their own protocol extensions and they should not break the above in any way. Then there is already some requirements of building two disjoined topologies in any rich ECMP DC fabric one say for primary paths the other for backup flows. (Case of active-active dual streaming applications). Question arises if this would be addressed also as part of basic spec, be combined with one or many of distributed algorithms or will require yet one more document which in turn will "extend" all of the above ?
primary/backup topologies are used for transmitting user data, not necessarily the flooding data. I don't see how they are related to the flooding topology, which is used for flooding only.
To the point, if a new distributed algorithm is defined that needs more data to be signaled, then we will extend the existing signaling. I don't see that being a problem. The way the signaling is defined in draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding does allow for such thing.
And before anyone suggests multi instance approach with logical or physical link separation it is not the right direction here. If anything perhaps MTR or SR come a bit closer. Kind regards, Robert. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:14 PM <tony...@tony.li <mailto:tony...@tony.li>> wrote: I think that this discussion would be greatly clarified if we clearly separated the discussion between a) the algorithm for computing the flooding topology, and b) the signaling to indicate how to proceed. I think that we are all in agreement that the algorithms can and should be separated from the signaling. I think that we are all in agreement that each algorithm should be independent. I’m of the opinion that the centralized signaling is a bit more extensive than the signaling for the distributed mode, but that there is also considerable overlap and that things would be unnecessarily redundant if we were to separate them. I believe that we are not in disagreement about the basics for the distributed signaling. If you disagree with this, please clearly articulate why you feel the signaling should be separated. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ 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