FYI… Because I am one of the co-authors of draft-chen-isis-ttz, I am recusing myself from this discussion. Martin will be the responsible AD for it, should one be needed.
Alvaro. On January 27, 2020 at 1:27:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) ([email protected]) wrote: Speaking as WG Co-chair: At IETF 107, we had a protracted discussion of several drafts having goal of reducing the amount of link-state information that must be flooded into the level-2 area. We have two drafts that do this essentially via abstraction of the level-1 areas. These are: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chen-isis-ttz-07.txt There are various reasons why these drafts can’t consolidated involving both IPR and government restrictions. Refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-lsr-00 for the complete discussion. We have another draft that also reduces the amount of link-state information each IS-IS router must maintain but using IS-IS reflectors. This is slightly different but also avoids leaking all the level-1 area link-state to the level-2 area. https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01.txt Given the amount of overlap and the conflicts amongst these drafts, the chairs/Ads are now asking whether there is a really a strong requirement to advance one or more of these documents. Especially given that we are already moving forward with both IS-IS/OSPF flooding reductions and the Hierarchal IS-IS work. Additionally, we anticipate we’ll reach an impasse in consolidating these drafts. We’d really like to hear from the operators that would deploy these mechanisms. Thanks, Acee and Chris
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
