Hi Tony, > So, can we PLEASE stop beating a dead horse?
Are you stating that computing dynamic flooding topologies has no use case outside of MSDCs or for that matter ANY-DCs ? Thx, R. PS. It is true that folks even running 10 racks think BGP is the only choice for the underlay but to me this is failure of deployment folks in vendors to properly position each dynamic routing protocol then nothing else. On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:02 PM Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > Gyan, > > Cisco has (reportedly) implemented this, but done so with their own > proprietary, undocumented distributed algorithm. > > The responses that I have seen from operators have been somewhat > disappointing: > > “There is no <expletive> way that I would ever let a <expletive> IGP into > my data center.” > > Others have been more polite, but similarly dismissive. > > The fact of the matter is that there is an installed base of BGP and folks > are not open to experimenting with anything else. > > So, can we PLEASE stop beating a dead horse? > > Tony > > > On Jun 14, 2022, at 1:43 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > All > > I agree this is important work for operators in DC networks NVO CLOS > architecture with extremely dense fabrics and massively scaled out spines. > > I agree we can move forward with progressing with only ISIS being > implemented. > > I do think that after the draft is published hopefully implementations > include OSPF as well as there is a lot of OSPF used by operators. > > NVO CLOS architecture I would say is being universally being deployed as > defacto standard in the DC arena. As well as most operators don’t want to > go for the BGP only solution in the DC due to the complexity as well as > having to provision many public ASNs. > > I support #1 first followed by #2. > > So far we have Arista implementation, and we have both Cisco and Juniper > Co-Authors as well on the draft. > > I think we have a good chance at #1 - Standards track. > > Les & Tony & Tony > > What is the chance of getting this implemented by Cisco & Juniper? > > > We also have a few major stakeholders in the industry supporting the > draft, Verizon, ATT and CenturyLink as co-authors which I think shows how > important this draft is for the industry. > > Kind Regards > > Gyan > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 4:05 PM John E Drake <jdrake= > 40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> Les, >> >> I'm happy with either 1 or 2. It's good work and I think it will become >> important. >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> John >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:01 PM >> > To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> > <ginsb...@cisco.com>; John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> >> > Cc: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>; Acee >> Lindem >> > (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org >> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - >> draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic- >> > flooding >> > >> > [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> > >> > >> > John - >> > >> > I would be inclined to agree with you - but...to my knowledge (happy to >> be >> > corrected...) - >> > >> > There has been no interoperability testing. >> > It is really only possible to do interoperability testing on >> centralized mode at >> > present, since distributed mode requires standardization/multi-vendor >> > implementation of at least one algorithm - which hasn’t happened yet. >> > So, a significant portion of the protocol extensions remain untested. >> And since >> > enthusiasm for this work has waned - perhaps only temporarily - it seems >> > unlikely that these gaps will be closed in the immediate future. >> > Moving to standards track RFC with these gaps seems unwise and to some >> > degree "irresponsible". >> > >> > I think there are then three viable paths: >> > >> > 1)Continue to refresh the draft until such time as the gaps are closed >> or it >> > becomes clear the work is more permanently not of interest 2)Capture the >> > current contents as an Experimental RFC - noting the remaining work. >> > 3)Capture the current contents as a Historic RFC - noting the remaining >> work. >> > >> > I am not in favor of #3. >> > I would be OK with #1 or #2. >> > >> > Les >> > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John E Drake >> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:23 AM >> > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; >> > > John Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> > > Cc: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>; Acee >> > > Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org >> > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - >> > > draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic- flooding >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > I don't understand why we don't just go through the normal Standards >> > > track process. I am sure there are any number of Standards track RFCs >> > > which are published and which are neither widely implemented nor >> > > widely deployed, but which may become so in the future. >> > > >> > > As Peter noted in the context of another draft, we are starting to see >> > > extreme growth in the size of IGPs which to me indicates that the >> > > subject draft will be perceived as timely in the not too distant >> future. >> > > >> > > Yours Irrespectively, >> > > >> > > John >> > > >> > > >> > > Juniper Business Use Only >> > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg >> > > > (ginsberg) >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:19 PM >> > > > To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> > > > Cc: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>; >> Acee >> > > Lindem >> > > > (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org >> > > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - >> > > > draft-ietf-lsr- >> > > dynamic- >> > > > flooding >> > > > >> > > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > John - >> > > > >> > > > Thanx for the information. >> > > > >> > > > I think what is relevant as regards the dynamic-flooding draft is >> > > > that we >> > > may be >> > > > prematurely burying it. >> > > > It is true, as Tony has stated, that the marketplace has not shown >> > > > an active interest in deploying this technology - but I am not yet >> > > > convinced that this is >> > > the >> > > > final disposition. As the scale of IGP networks increases and the >> > > > use of fast- flooding is deployed, it may be that interest in >> dynamic-flooding >> > is revived. >> > > > >> > > > Publishing the draft as Experimental leaves open the possibilities. >> > > > It could still be moved to Historic somewhere down the road if there >> > > continues >> > > > to be no deployment interest. >> > > > >> > > > I suppose it is also possible (as your post indicates) that we move >> > > > it to >> > > historic >> > > > now and find a way to move it from historic if/when the need arises >> > > > - but I frankly find such an approach very odd. >> > > > >> > > > I do not know why we are in a rush to "bury this". I think Acee has >> > > > raised a >> > > valid >> > > > point - given that there was broad consensus on the protocol >> > > > extensions themselves - that it would be good to formally preserve >> > > > the draft content. I >> > > think >> > > > Experimental is the best way to do that. >> > > > >> > > > Les >> > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:46 AM >> > > > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> >> > > > > Cc: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com>; >> > > > > Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org >> > > > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - >> > > > > draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic- flooding >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Les and all, >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Jun 13, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> > > > > <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never >> > > > > > actually >> > > > > published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The logic of that escapes me. >> > > > > >> > > > > It so happens I recently became aware that this publication track >> > > > > is explicitly considered to be OK. >> > > > > >> > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/sta >> > > > > tements/designating-rfcs-__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GYT66d5pSskUh- >> > > > l3RWY9vSXdEA8b >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Ue7d8_9gGpIfpVLwvuDJs5gcVY6ekmyERneakOWjjjCfV0DvppQpFMmp2bSw >> > > HRw >> > > > YyGo$ >> > > > > historic-2014-07-20/ sez >> > > > > >> > > > > "An RFC may be published directly as Historic, with no earlier >> > > > > status to change (see, for example, RFC 4870). This is usually >> > > > > done to document ideas that were considered and discarded, or >> > > > > protocols that were already historic when it was decided to >> > > > > document them. Those publications are handled as are any other >> RFCs.” >> > > > > >> > > > > $0.02, >> > > > > >> > > > > —John >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > Lsr mailing list >> > > > Lsr@ietf.org >> > > > >> > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;! >> > > !NEt >> > > > 6yMaO-gk!GYT66d5pSskUh- >> > > > >> > > l3RWY9vSXdEA8bUe7d8_9gGpIfpVLwvuDJs5gcVY6ekmyERneakOWjjjCfV0Dv >> > > ppQ >> > > > pFMmp2bSwFi578Bc$ >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Lsr mailing list >> > > Lsr@ietf.org >> > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr_ >> > > _;!!NEt6yMaO- >> > gk!FgD3U4E76lPBUWCjE2THKu9v6Ky9kpkbKKM5bm__xq22wLi0NUYiVw >> > > lsok2zdPLSLPRhfqAx2bDuepvCjy_F-M4kM4FMo7I$ >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> Lsr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >> > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > *Gyan Mishra* > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
