Hi Les,
> It is possible to merge/split areas without adjacency flaps.
[HC]: While an existing area or zone is being abstracted as a single node
or vice versa, there are the adjacency ups and downs. The areas
merging/splitting without adjacency flaps has been done before this abstraction
and will not reduce the service interruption during the abstraction.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:59 PM
To: Huaimo Chen <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee)
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" -
draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
Huaimo –
It is possible to merge/split areas without adjacency flaps.
The technique has been known for many years.
It requires careful planning – but it is quite feasible and has been done..
You cannot justify the need for zones on this basis.
Les
From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Huaimo Chen
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:33 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem
(acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" -
draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
Hi Les,
> I see no need for “abstraction at arbitrary boundaries”. Areas work just fine.
> IS-IS already has smooth transition capability for merging/splitting areas..
[HC]: The smooth transition capability for merging/splitting areas in IS-IS
will not reduce the service interruption while an existing area or zone is
being abstracted as a single node because the adjacency ups and downs.
> Given both of the points above, I see no value in “smooth transition to/from
> zone abstraction”.
[HC]: The "smooth transition to/from zone abstraction" will reduce the service
interruption while an existing area or zone is being abstracted as a single
node and vice versa.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Les
Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:06 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" -
draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
I see no need for “abstraction at arbitrary boundaries”. Areas work just fine.
IS-IS already has smooth transition capability for merging/splitting areas.
Given both of the points above, I see no value in “smooth transition to/from
zone abstraction”.
If these are the principal distinguishing characteristics of TTZ as compared to
area proxy (and I would agree they are), then I see no reason why this solution
should be pursued as well.
I am therefore opposed to WG adoption of TTZ.
Les
From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Acee
Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:17 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" -
draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
Based on the discussions in the last meeting and on the mailing list regarding
draft-chen-isis-ttz-11, the chairs feel that there are enough differences with
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03 and in the community to consider advancing it
independently on the experimental track.
These differences include abstraction at arbitrary boundaries and IS-IS
extensions for smooth transition to/from zone abstraction.
We are now starting an LSR WG adoption call for draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt.
Please indicate your support or objection to adoption prior to Tuesday,
September 2nd, 2020.
Thanks,
Acee and Chris
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
