Aijun, How multi instance is implemented is at the discretion of a vendor. It can be one process N threads or N processes. It can be both and operator may choose.
MFI is just one process - by the spec - so it is inferior. Cheers, R. On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:44 PM Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Robert: > > Separate into different protocol instances can accomplish the similar > task, but it has some deployment overhead. > MFIs within one instance can avoid such cumbersome work, and doesn’t > affect the basic routing calculation process. > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > On Feb 26, 2021, at 19:00, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Yali, > > >> If this was precise, then the existing multi-instance mechanism would be >> sufficient. >> [Yali]: MFI is a different solution we recommend to solve this same and >> valuable issue. >> > > Well the way I understand this proposal MFI is much weaker solution in > terms of required separation. > > In contrast RFC8202 allows to separate ISIS instances at the process > level, but here MFIs as defined must be handled by the same ISIS process > > This document defines an extension to > IS-IS to allow *one standard instance* of > > the protocol to support multiple update > > process operations. > > > Thx, > R. > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
