Hi Peter, Thanks for your question. Please see inline [yali3].
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:20 PM To: wangyali <wangyal...@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt Hi Yali, On 04/03/2021 14:45, wangyali wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Please see inline [Yali2]. Thanks a lot. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 6:50 PM > To: wangyali <wangyal...@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra > <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > Cc: Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang > <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr > <lsr@ietf.org>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for > draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt > > Hi Yali, > > On 04/03/2021 11:42, wangyali wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Please review follows tagged by [Yali]. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:37 PM >> To: wangyali <wangyal...@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra >> <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> >> Cc: Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang >> <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr >> <lsr@ietf.org>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> >> 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." > > I wonder what is the difference between "MFI-specific LSDB subdivided from a > single LSDB" versus the "MFI-specific LSDB". > [Yali2]: Actually I am trying to optimize and accurately describe the key > point that multiple Update processes associated with each MFI operate on a > common LSDB within the zero IS-IS instance, and each Update process is > isolated from each other and does not affect each other. > So we say "MFI-specific LSDB subdivided from a single LSDB", which may > explicitly indicate each MFI-specific LSDB shares a common LSDB but each > Update process associated with a MFI is isolated. However, from your previous > question and suggestions, "MFI-specific LSDB" looks like unclear and > misleading. Any good idea on improving the expression are welcome. it's not the name that is as important. It's the concept that looks questionable - how well can you isolate the update processing if the data are part of the same LSDB and whether such update process separation would prove to be useful at all. I don't know, so far I have not seen any evidence. [yali3] This draft defines a new TLV, i.e. MFI-ID TLV, which may be included in each Level 1/Level 2 IS-IS LSPs and SNPs. Hence, each Level 1/Level 2 LSPs and SNPs associated with each Update Process can be uniquely identified by MFI-ID. In this draft, each flooding instance has its own separated Update process, which isolates the impact of application information flooding on the IS-IS protocol operation. So each Level 1/Level 2 LSP associated with a specific MFI carries flooding information belonging to the specific MFI. And Level 1/Level 2 PSNP and Level 1/Level 2 CSNP containing information about LSPs that propagated in the specific MFI are generated to synchronize the MFI-specific LSDB. thanks, Peter > > thanks, > Peter > >> >> thanks, >> Peter >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> Yali >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:12 PM >>> To: wangyali <wangyal...@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra >>> <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> >>> Cc: Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang >>> <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr >>> <lsr@ietf.org>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> >>> 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:ppse...@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:23 PM >>>> To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk >>>> <rob...@raszuk.net> >>>> Cc: Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang >>>> <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr >>>> <lsr@ietf.org>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com>; wangyali >>>> <wangyal...@huawei.com> >>>> 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 <rob...@raszuk.net >>>>> <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> 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 >>>>> <wang...@chinatelecom.cn >>>>> <mailto:wang...@chinatelecom.cn>> 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 <rob...@raszuk.net >>>>>> <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> 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 >>>>>> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lsr mailing list >>>>> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> >>>>> 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 Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
