Hi Jie Response in-line
Thank you Gyan On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:11 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com> wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > As you mentioned, both MT and MI can provide separate topologies and the > topology based computation, and MI can provide separate LSDBs at some > additional cost (separate adjacencies, etc.). In this document, the > resource of VTN mainly refers to the forwarding plane resources, thus MT is > chosen as it can provide the required functionality with less overhead. > > Gyan> Makes sense. As their are many ways to provide resource isolation a > key point that this draft solution that it provides is an optimal resource > isolation as that relates to forwarding plane isolation of resources thus > from a TEAS Network slice perspective, MT was chosen purposely as the > requirement is exclusively for forwarding plane FIB programming isolation > and not both forwarding and control plane isolation super set provided by > MI. This maybe a good point to note as to why MT was chosen. Also from an > IGP perspective why ISIS is chosen over OSPF for VTN underlay resource > provisioning as OSPF does not have a MT concept. > > Hope this helps. > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra > *Sent:* Monday, March 8, 2021 7:29 AM > *To:* Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; > Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng....@foxmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > a...@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; lsr@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology > (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - > draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03 > > > > > > Dear Authors > > > > Why was MT chosen and not MI for VTN underlay network slice underpinning. > MT instances has separate topology but not separate LSDB where MI Multi > instance RFC 6822 has a separate LSDB for resources isolation and I think > would be a better fit for VTN underlay provisioning. > > > > MI > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6822 > > > > Thanks > > > > Gyan > > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:34 AM Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Robert ruminated: > > > > That said I think perhaps we are indeed missing LROW WG (Local Routing > Operations WG) where just like in GROW WG where mainly (Global) BGP > operational aspects are discussed there could be good place to discuss > operational aspects of link state protocols deployment and use cases. In > fact perhaps it would also free some LSR bandwidth to really focus on > protocol extensions. > > > > > > +1 > > > > IGPs grew a zoo of horns and bells by now and no'one tells the operators > which spines are poisonous ;-) > > > > --- tony > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > -- > > [image: 图像已被发件人删除。] <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > > > *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g> > *Silver Spring, MD > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
