it's a circular argument to an extent (though I'm sympathetic with the thought). Unless a draft is an experimental RFC there is no real stable point to implement & deploy so it's hard these days to get 2 implementations unless one sponsors an open source one (and nature of ISIS is that there is barely any open source given that it runs normally @ scale & feature count that open source is simply not efficient enough though I admit it maybe just my lens to an extent).
So having nothing experimental and nevertheless deployed generates then de-facto proprietary stuff since deployed solutions become pretty immovable targets as we all know. So, take your pick but it's hard to have it both ways these days IMO ... -- tony On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 4:14 PM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well WFIW IDR solved this dilemma by mandating at least two documented > implementations before proceeding with any proposal to IESG (irrespective > of the RFC document type). > > After all nothing stops anyone from implementing an idea described in the > WG document using if needed early code point allocations. > > On the other hand having RFC experimental status of any proposal ensures > it has been reviewed by a number of people and that at least no major > issues have been found during the review. > > Of course IGP is not BGP though both use multiple vendors network > elements, but I guess that would narrow the gates of single vendors pushing > their own proprietary solutions via IETF. > > Kind regards, > Robert > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 7:56 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Les >> >> My thoughts are that as both of these drafts are experimental, if both >> get published we can let the industry decide which is to be the preferred >> solution which can then progress as standards track to address >> interoperability issues with a single solution implemented by vendors. >> >> I think by picking one now over the other we are not letting the cards >> fall on the table and prematurely making a decision and not letting things >> naturally play out. >> >> I agree the implementation of each is non trivial however the router >> configuration could boil down to a simple knob similar to fast flooding. >> As an example there maybe use cases that for a DC CLOS topology where area >> proxy with n-way ECMP paths leaf to scale out spine maybe better suited, >> however in a core or aggregation domain maybe flood reflection maybe >> preferred from a topological perspective during the study phase. >> >> I don’t have a crystal ball but it’s possible just as winning the lottery >> is possible that both drafts garnish industry support and from a sales and >> marketing perspective vendors can still have their cake and eat it too by >> solving a major backbone scalability issue win win for all and so >> developing both solutions that become standards track and implemented by >> all vendors. No interoperability issues. >> >> I am in agreement on implementation that in the end having a single >> solution is most desirable to avoid interoperability. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Gyan >> >> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 12:24 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Gyan – >>> >>> >>> >>> I am interested in your perspective – but could you provide more details? >>> >>> What deployment scenarios do you have in mind where one solution is >>> advantageous over the other? And why are both scenarios likely to be seen >>> in the real world? >>> >>> >>> >>> I think you can appreciate that implementation of either solution is >>> non-trivial – as is insuring interoperability – as is the actual deployment. >>> >>> What justifies doubling that effort? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanx. >>> >>> >>> >>> Les >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2021 5:46 PM >>> *To:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < >>> [email protected]>; Tony Li <[email protected]>; Tony Przygienda < >>> [email protected]>; [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS >>> >>> >>> >>> All >>> >>> >>> >>> As Acee mentioned per the subject of this thread “Using L1 for transit >>> traffic in IS-IS” is supported today and is deployed by operators with >>> large backbones as well today, and both solutions, area proxy and flood >>> reflection now allows the L1 transit solution to scale. >>> >>> >>> >>> Speaking from an operators perspective we are in favor of multiple >>> solutions as their maybe use cases where one applies better then the other >>> and vice versa. Flexibility is a good thing. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Gyan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> It is possible to designate experimental RFCs as historic if there is no >>> evidence of widespread use over a period of time, as is currently being >>> done for HTTP-related experimental RFCs: >>> >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-http-experiments-to-historic/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Hence, I think having multiple experimental publications for a problem >>> is ok.. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Muthu >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 6:08 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Acee – >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanx for responding while you are on vacation. >>> >>> >>> >>> While it is true I am not enthusiastic about any of the solutions, my >>> point of emphasis is that it’s a failure of WG process to simply move >>> forward with all solutions – which it seems to me is what is about to >>> happen. >>> >>> >>> >>> Note that this is completely consistent with what I said back when WG >>> adoption for the drafts was being discussed (thanx to Tony P for pointing >>> me back to that time (June 21, 2020)): >>> >>> >>> >>> *<snip>* >>> >>> *I support the WG adoption of >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/> .* >>> >>> >>> >>> *(I also support WG adoption of >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection> )* >>> >>> >>> >>> *I believe the problem space addressed by these two drafts warrants >>> attention.* >>> >>> *…* >>> >>> *The easy road for the WG to take would be to simply allow both drafts >>> to proceed to Experimental RFCs, but I hope we are able to do more than >>> this. Multiple solutions place undesirable burdens on vendors and providers >>> alike.* >>> >>> >>> >>> *To the extent they feel comfortable, I encourage folks who wish to >>> deploy such solutions to share their requirements and discuss how each of >>> the solutions* >>> >>> *address their requirements/fall short of addressing their requirements. >>> I think this would help the WG discover better ways forward.* >>> >>> >>> >>> *<end snip>* >>> >>> >>> >>> Don’t think we have made progress in that regard… >>> >>> >>> >>> Les >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 9, 2021 1:59 PM >>> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Tony Przygienda < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Cc:* Tony Li <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Les, >>> >>> >>> >>> I know you don’t feel that the IGP should solve this problem but there >>> was lots of interest in the three solutions to reduce the overhead when >>> using IS-IS L1 as transit for IS- IS L2. Let’s not rehash that. >>> >>> >>> >>> What do feel needs to be done? Note that I’m on vacation and unlikely to >>> engage again until next week… >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> >>> *Date: *Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 2:05 PM >>> *To: *Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> >>> *Cc: *Tony Li <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Acee >>> Lindem <[email protected]> >>> *Subject: *RE: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS >>> >>> >>> >>> Let me try to clarify my position… >>> >>> >>> >>> Two disjoint sets of authors looked at the same problem space and >>> independently came up with two different (and incompatible) protocol >>> extensions to provide a solution. >>> >>> >>> >>> (Aside: I believe fully that both sets of authors have done their best >>> to define what they think is a good solution. If anything I have said >>> suggests otherwise, that was not my intent and I apologize to both sets of >>> authors for any misunderstanding.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Both solutions have been published as WG documents and assigned protocol >>> codepoints. >>> >>> We are now being asked to publish both drafts as RFCs (I am assuming >>> based on Tony Li’s response that the LC request for Area Proxy is soon to >>> happen.) >>> >>> >>> >>> I don’t believe the WG has reached consensus that the IGPs should be >>> extended to address the problem. >>> >>> I don’t believe the WG has reached consensus as to which solution is >>> “better”. >>> >>> I don’t believe the WG has even discussed whether a single solution or >>> multiple solutions are required. >>> >>> If multiple solutions are required, there has been no discussion as to >>> when each of the solutions should be used. Are there some deployment >>> scenarios where flood-reflection is a better fit and some where area proxy >>> is a better fit? >>> >>> Is there a need for additional solutions i.e., deployments where neither >>> of the current candidates are suitable? >>> >>> >>> >>> It seems to me that by entertaining a LC request at this point we are >>> simply functioning as a pass through to allow multiple individual solutions >>> to be published as RFCs. And while there are currently two solutions to the >>> same problem space asking to progress, I think we can expect others and we >>> have no basis on which to reject other proposals. >>> >>> >>> >>> This is very different from how any other work brought before the >>> LSR/OSPF/IS-IS WGs has been done in the 20+ years during which I have been >>> an active participant. >>> >>> In all other cases, the WG has strived to come up with a single >>> interoperable solution. >>> >>> Sometimes only one solution is proposed and it is refined based on >>> discussion and then progressed. >>> >>> Sometimes multiple solutions are proposed and there is discussion of >>> both which results in choosing one over the other or some sort of merge of >>> the solutions. >>> >>> But I do not recall a case where the WG simply allowed multiple >>> non-interoperable solutions to the same problem to be published as RFCs >>> largely w/o comment. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not think this is an appropriate use of the Standards process and I >>> do not think this serves the industry. >>> >>> This does not mean that either solution is w/o merit – but I do think >>> the requests for Last Call are premature. >>> >>> But, this is just my opinion. >>> >>> If the WG (members, chairs, and ADs) think otherwise then the WG should >>> act appropriately. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanx for listening. >>> >>> >>> >>> Les >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 8, 2021 5:27 AM >>> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* Tony Li <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Acee Lindem (acee) < >>> [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS >>> >>> >>> >>> Les, all sounds to me unfortunately like a gripe (and a late one @ that >>> now that things were worked on in WG for years & are ready to RFC being >>> customer deployed, @ least flood reflection is). >>> >>> >>> >>> Plus, unless you have a dramatically better idea than the drafts >>> extended I fail to understand what your point is except as Tony1 says "we >>> should not scale IGP higher?" (AFAIS hierarchy is not an answer here unless >>> you ask customers for a flag day with lots new static configuration >>> everywhere and possibly restructuring of their network to a hard-coded >>> "hierarchy" and albeit such effort may work in some totalitarian countries >>> on in pretty small networks, the majority of large ISIS customers will end >>> such discussions in timeframe of single minutes clock count ;-) >>> >>> >>> >>> -- tony >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:23 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> (Subject was: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for "IS-IS Flood Reflection" >>> -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05) >>> >>> >>> >>> (Changing the subject as Acee has suggested that discussion of the >>> problem space is inappropriate for the WG LC thread) >>> >>> >>> >>> Tony (and everyone) – >>> >>> >>> >>> This isn’t the first contentious issue the WG has considered. By way of >>> comparison (hopefully a useful one), a number of folks (including you and >>> I) are participating in another contentious issue – fast-flooding. >>> >>> But for fast-flooding there is broad WG consensus that fast-flooding is >>> something that IS-IS should do. The contentious part is regarding what is >>> the best way to do it. And we are proceeding in a manner where different >>> algorithms are being tested while still in the WG document stage. And there >>> is hope (still TBD) that multiple algorithms may be able to interoperate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here, I am not convinced that there is broad WG consensus that this is a >>> problem that the IGPs should solve. (If I am wrong on that I presume the WG >>> members will let me know.) >>> >>> And, we have multiple proposals, none of which have any hope of >>> interoperating with each other. >>> >>> And we have had very little discussion about the problem space. (not >>> your fault – certainly you have been willing as have the authors of the >>> competing draft) >>> >>> >>> >>> So, at best, I think WG LC is premature. I would like to see more >>> discussion as to whether this is a problem that IGPs should solve as well >>> as a general look at how this might be done with and/or without the IGPs. >>> >>> And since all of the proposed solutions have been allocated code points, >>> they can continue to gain implementation/deployment experience in the >>> meantime. Therefore, I do not see that we need to make this choice now. >>> >>> >>> >>> I realize that you are not the one asking for WG LC and I don’t know >>> when you plan to do so and I am not trying to influence you in that regard. >>> >>> But for me, WG LC is at best premature. >>> >>> >>> >>> As regards you trying to solve a real world customer ask, I was aware of >>> that. And I believe the authors of flood-reflection can make the same claim. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanx for listening, >>> >>> >>> >>> Les >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Tony Li <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Tony Li >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 7, 2021 2:53 PM >>> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) < >>> [email protected]>; [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" >>> -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Les, >>> >>> >>> >>> And in response to Tony Li’s statement: “…the IETF is at its best when >>> it is documenting de facto standards” >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) I fully believe that our customers understand their requirements(sic) >>> better than we (vendors) do. But that does not mean that they understand >>> what is the best solution better than we do. >>> >>> When a customer comes to me and says “Can you do this?” my first >>> response is usually “Please fully describe your requirements independent of >>> the solution.” >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> If it matters at all, Area Proxy is the result of a customer explaining >>> his issues and my attempt to address them. I’m sorry you don’t like my >>> proposal. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2)Not clear to me that there is an existing “de facto standard” here – >>> which is reinforced by the fact that we have so many different solutions >>> proposed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There isn’t. Yet. Thus, it’s not time to pick one vs. the other. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>> >>> -- >>> >>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> >>> >>> *Gyan Mishra* >>> >>> *Network Solutions Architect * >>> >>> *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* >>> >>> *M 301 502-1347* >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> <http://www.verizon.com/> >> >> *Gyan Mishra* >> >> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >> >> *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* >> >> >> >> *M 301 502-1347* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
