Hi Peter, Thanks for your comments. Yes. I am improving this sentence. Please review the following update.
OLD: " And Level 1/Level 2 PSNP and Level 1/Level 2 CSNP containing information about LSPs that transmitted in a specific MFI are generated to synchronize the LSDB corresponding to the specific MFI." NEW: " And Level 1/Level 2 PSNP and Level 1/Level 2 CSNP containing information about LSPs that transmitted in a specific MFI are generated to synchronize the MFI-specific sub-LSDB. Each MFI-specific sub-LSDB is subdivided from a single LSDB." Best, Yali -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:12 PM To: wangyali <[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Cc: Huzhibo <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; Tony Li <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; Tianran Zhou <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt Yali, On 01/03/2021 10:49, wangyali wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Many thanks for your feedback. First of all, I'm sorry for the confusion I > had caused you from my previous misunderstanding. > > And I want to clarify that a single and common LSDB is shared by all MFIs. well, the draft says: "information about LSPs that transmitted in a specific MFI are generated to synchronize the LSDB corresponding to the specific MFI." If the above has changed, then please update the draft accordingly. thanks, Peter > > Best, > Yali > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:23 PM > To: Gyan Mishra <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk > <[email protected]> > Cc: Huzhibo <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang > <[email protected]>; Tony Li <[email protected]>; lsr > <[email protected]>; Tianran Zhou <[email protected]>; wangyali > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for > draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt > > Gyan, > > On 26/02/2021 17:19, Gyan Mishra wrote: >> >> MFI seems more like flex algo with multiple sub topologies sharing a >> common links in a topology where RFC 8202 MI is separated at the >> process level separate LSDB. So completely different and of course >> different goals and use cases for MI versus MFI. > > I would not use the fle-algo analogy - all flex-algos operate on top of a > single LSDB, contrary to what is being proposed in MFI draft. > >> >> MFI also seems to be a flood reduction mechanism by creating >> multiple sub topology instances within a common LSDB. There are a >> number of flood reduction drafts and this seems to be another method >> of achieving the same. > > MFI draft proposes to keep the separate LSDB per MFI, so the above analogy is > not correct either. > > thanks, > Peter > > >> >> Gyan >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:10 AM Robert Raszuk <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> 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] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> >> -- >> >> <http://www.verizon.com/> >> >> *Gyan Mishra* >> >> /Network Solutions A//rchitect / >> >> /M 301 502-1347 >> 13101 Columbia Pike >> /Silver Spring, MD >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
