Support as co-author. Thanks, Liu
Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> 于2020年8月18日周二 下午3:52写道： > Huaimo – > > > > The question I and others have asked is “what can we do with zones that > cannot be done with areas?”. > > > > From the day several years ago when IS-IS TTZ was first presented, your > answer has been “with zones you can hitlessly alter the topological > boundaries”. > > My response has consistently been “we can already do that with areas”. > > > If you want to justify zones, you then need to provide some other use case > that either cannot be done using areas or cannot be done hitlessly. > > Continuing to focus on something that can already be done with areas isn’t > helping you. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Huaimo Chen <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:18 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" > - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt > > > > 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] <[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] > <[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]> on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:06 PM > *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [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]> *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem (acee) > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:17 AM > *To:* [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 >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
