Hi Robert, The draft tries to propose a lightweight isolated flooding solution capering the existing IGP multi-instance solutions. As the suggestion proposed by Acee, it should take more work. Now it focuses on ISIS firstly. Then OSPF may be taken into account depending on the research result of ISIS.
Best Regards, Robin From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 6:40 AM To: Aijun Wang <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; wangyali <wangyal...@huawei.com>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt Dear Authors, Looking at the bigger picture here I have two simple questions. Q1: Do you plan to submit draft-xxxxx-lsr-ospf-mfi-00.txt any time soon ? Q2: If No - why not ? If Yes - how would you choose to use either draft-xxxxx-lsr-ospf-mfi-00.txt or https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance-11 for your non routing application (opaque to routing) information flooding ? Extra bonus question - It seems that the very same application (ifit) is proposed to be distributed using BGP too (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-01). Can you provide pros and cons comparison of using link state flooding vs p2mp BGP model to distribute this type of data ? Hint: Please do not respond .. Oh this is yet another way ... That is not a valid answer. Many thx, Robert.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
