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

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,

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

    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

    If you disagree with this, please clearly articulate why you feel
    the signaling should be separated.


Lsr mailing list

Lsr mailing list

Reply via email to