Hi Peter, Please review follows tagged by [Yali].
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:37 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 03/03/2021 06:02, wangyali wrote: > 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." please specify sub-LSDB. [Yali] Thanks for your comment. But to avoid introducing a new term, I change to use "MFI-specific LSDB" instead of " MFI-specific sub-LSDB ". And we give the explanation that "Each MFI-specific LSDB is subdivided from a single LSDB." thanks, Peter > > 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
