Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

> >>(The Experimental Track status for these drafts > reflects that > >>reality.) > >> >

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

January 10, 2022 at 2:36 PM > To: Acee Lindem > Cc: Aijun Wang , Christian Hopps < > cho...@chopps.org>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" >, "lsr@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo &

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

    >>    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

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 Speaking as document shepherd: Who thinks we should delay this draft while waiting for a deployment draft? I know some people supported this but I believe it would be bett

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

>>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 n

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

To: Acee Lindem Cc: Aijun Wang , Christian Hopps , "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 yes, first, if you abstract in _any_ way (except a full mesh for a s

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

> >> > >> > >>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 > >>

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

gt;> >> 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

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

>>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 thir

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection"-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

aim 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.) > > > > > >

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

; Acee Lindem (acee) Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 I’d very much support applicability draft work! Cheers, Jeff On Jan 3, 2022, at 08:05, Tony Przygienda mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>> wrote:  AFAIS this i

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

utions 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. >> >

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

>> > >> > 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

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

; > > > (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.

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

to also progress it – which would result in three solutions being advanced.)       From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 11:47 AM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

inline. last email from my side in this thread. On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 3:47 PM Aijun Wang wrote: > Hi, Tony: > > The advantage of IGP is that it can cure itself when there is any topology > change, no additional operator intervention involved. > neither is it in FR case. if you lose all FRs

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

accomplish its WG last call. >>> >>> >>> Aijun Wang >>> China Telecom >>> >>> On Dec 9, 2021, at 10:07, Acee Lindem (acee) >> 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>>  >>> >>> Hi Aijun, &

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

last call. >>>> >>>> >>>> Aijun Wang >>>> China Telecom >>>> >>>>>> On Dec 9, 2021, at 10:07, Acee Lindem (acee) >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>  >>>>>

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

the discussion in these days, it is doubtful for IGP to evolve into >> this direction as behaved by BGP. >> >> >> >> From the POV of the operator, we will not consider such strange design to >> scale the IS-IS. >> >> >> >> From the documents itsel

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

ut an adoption or last call. I’m expecting >>> at least one more review on the draft. Technical comments on the draft >>> would be appreciated. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> >>> >>> Fr

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

ll. I’m expecting > at least one more review on the draft. Technical comments on the draft > would be appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > *From: *Aijun Wang > *Date: *Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:15 AM > *To: *Acee Lindem > *Cc: *"Les Ginsberg (gin

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Hi, Tony: I am referring to the “flood reflection” solution. I think “area proxy” is one better solution if we want actually the L1 zone to be the transited by L2 zone. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Dec 10, 2021, at 13:13, Tony Li wrote: > >  > > Hi Aijun, > >> No, I think the WG

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Hi Aijun, > No, I think the WG participations would like to enjoy the interested and > correct direction topics. > One technical considerations is the following: if IGP evolved into this > direction, then the following connections loop diagram is also possible: > L2-L1-L2-L1-L2-L1-…..-L2(back

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

> From: Aijun Wang > Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:15 AM > To: Acee Lindem > Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "lsr@ietf.org" > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" > -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 >

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

sberg)" , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 Hi, Acee: I found there is no any technical discussion on the list for the mentioned draft after its adoption(from 2020-7-6), even before i

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

06:28, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: >  > Hi Les, > > From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:10 PM > To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , Acee Lindem > , "lsr@ietf.org" > Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 11:53 PM Tony Li wrote: > > Les, > 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

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

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Hi Les, From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:10 PM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , Acee Lindem , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 Let me try t

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

s proposed. Les From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:31 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 Hi Les, From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

ing 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 so

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Hi Les, > 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

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Hi Les, From: Lsr on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 1:17 PM To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" , "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflectio

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

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 14th , 2021. Also please post your comments on the draft. I’m allowing as

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

: Tony Przygienda Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 2:55 AM To: Aijun Wang Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 4:42 PM Aijun Wang mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.c

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

I support publication of this document, as a co-author. Chris On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 1:47 PM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > 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 14th > , 2021. Also please

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

I support WG LC for this draft. From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Monday, November 22, 2021 at 14:47 To: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 This begins the WG Last

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 4:42 PM Aijun Wang wrote: > Do not support its publication. > > Very curious which operator will have such network design that the L1 > routers locate in the middle but the L2 routers sits around them. > Do read the draft carefully to understand that this is an evolution

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

21 at 2:48 PM > To: "lsr@ietf.org" > 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

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

f.org" 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 14th , 2021. Also please post y

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Support the publishment of this draft. Thanks, Sandy --原始邮件-- 发件人：AceeLindem(acee) 收件人：lsr@ietf.org; 日 期 ：2021年11月23日 03:48 主 题 ：[Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-ref

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

t; > > *Date: *Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:48 PM > *To: *"lsr@ietf.org" > *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-reflecti

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Speaking as a WG member: I support publication of this experimental extension to IS-IS. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" Date: Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:48 PM To: "lsr@ietf.org" Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection&quo

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

I support this Draft. Regards Parag From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:17 AM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 [External Email. Be cautious of content] This beg

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Yes/support Cheers, Jeff > On Nov 22, 2021, at 14:47, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: > >  > 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 14th , > 2021. Also please post your comments on the

[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 14th , 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