On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:22 AM Henk Smit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Huaimo Chen wrote on 2020-07-14 06:09: > > > 2). IS-IS TTZ abstracts a zone to a single node. A zone is any target > > block or piece of an IS-IS area, which is to be abstracted. This seems > > more flexible and convenient to users. > > I don't agree that this convenience is really beneficial. > I actually think this convenience is a downside. > I actually think not having more configuration across the network to enable a new feature is more useful even if you don't do this operation every single day (especially if you want to roll back). Link-state protocols are not easy to understand. And we already > have the misfortune that IS-IS and OSPF use different names for things. > Adding the new concept of a "zone", while we already have the > concept of an area makes things only more complex. > Agree in general. I would say this is no more complex than what has been adopted already or the slew of proposals we have been seeing here. I too think as some other said we should have ideally adopted only one proposal by merging whatever possible. As that is not the case and 2 parallel proposals have already been accepted as WG experimental track, and given the interest/support on this particular topic I would think it's reasonable to continue this experiment in IS-IS too as is done in OSPF. -- Uma C.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
