Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> writes:
One thing Les is missing here is that proxy & reflection present in terms of deployment requirements and ultimate properties very different engineering & operational trade-offs. Different customers follow different philosophies here IME So we are not strictly standardizing here 2 solutions for the same thing, we are standardizing two solutions that meet very different deployment and operational requirements albeit from 20K feet view all that stuff looks the same of course as any other thing does ...
Have we captured these "different deployment and operational requirements" anywhere? I think might be very useful... Thanks, Chris. [as wg member]
-- tony On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 7:17 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= [email protected]> wrote: When I look at this request, I see it in a larger context. There are two drafts which attempt to address the same problem in very different ways: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ Both of them discuss in their respective introductions the motivation – which is to address scaling issues in deployment scenarios where the existing IS-IS hierarchy is being asked to “stand on its head” i.e., interconnection between different L1 areas is not to be achieved by utilizing an L2 backbone – rather it is the L1 areas themselves which are required to be used for interconnection of sites (e.g., two datacenters) and the scaling properties of the existing protocol hierarchy when used in this way are not attractive. I find no technical basis on which to choose between the two proposed solutions – so in my mind a last call for “Flood-Reflection” presupposes a last call for “Area Proxy” – and therein lies my angst. The end result will be that multiple incompatible solutions to the same problem will be defined. It will then be left to customers to try to determine which of the solutions seems best to them – which in turn will put the onus on vendors to support both solutions (depending on the set of customers each vendor supports). This – to me – represents an utter failure of the standards process. We are reduced to a set of constituencies which never find common ground – the end result being sub-optimal for the industry as a whole. It seems to me that the proper role of the WG is to address the big questions first: 1)Is this a problem which needs to be solved by link-state protocols? We certainly have folks who are clever enough to define solutions – the two drafts are a proof of that. But whether this is a wise use of the IGPs I think has never been fully discussed/answered. Relevant to this point is past experience with virtual links in OSPF – use of which was problematic and which has largely fallen out of use. Also, many datacenters use BGP (w or w/o IGP) and therefore have other ways to address such issues. Although I am familiar with the “one protocol is simpler” argument, whether that justifies altering the IGPs in any of the proposed ways is still an important question to discuss. 2)If link state protocols do need to solve this problem, what is the preferred way to do that? This requires meaningful dialogue and a willingness to engage on complex technical issues. The alternative is to do what we seem to be doing – allowing multiple solutions to move forward largely without comment. In which case I see no basis on which to object – anyone who can demonstrate a deployment case should then be allowed to move a draft forward – and there are then no standardized solutions. (The Experimental Track status for these drafts reflects that reality.) Les P.S. (Aside: There is a third draft offering a solution in this space https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-ttz/ - but as that draft continues to promote its primary usage as a means of more easily changing area boundaries (merging/splitting) I have not discussed it here. However, if the authors of that draft claim it as a solution to the same problem space claimed by Area Proxy/Flood Reflection then the WG would have no basis but to also progress it – which would result in three solutions being advanced.) From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 11:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 This begins the WG Last for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05. Please post your support or objection to this list by 12:00 AM UTC on Dec 14^th , 2021. Also please post your comments on the draft. I’m allowing as extra week as I like to get some additional reviews – although my comments have been addressed. Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
