please do not co-mingle hierarchical ISIS and flood reduction drafts into this discussion. Albeit seemingly related the ttz/abstract/flood-reflector drafts solve a different, valid problem of multiple large operators that hierachical,flood-reduce cannot solve albeit they can be used @ the same time. RFC1925 section 5
thanks --- tony On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:42 AM Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
