Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread Christian Hopps
+1 Thanks, Chris. > On Apr 2, 2019, at 13:25, tony...@tony.li wrote: > > > I am in complete agreement with both Les’s extensive analysis and opinion. > ;-) > > Tony > > >> On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:37 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> wrote: >> >> In reply to my own post, here is my opinion

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Tony – This is not what I was trying to say. It is true that I still “kind of wish” we could just say “LANs always enabled for flooding” and be done with it. But as there are (or could be) cases where LANs are part of the deployment, I think it is more robust if we define the protocol

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread tony . li
Hi Tony, > As to signalling, I think we have not much choice and need to signal the > PNODE as either being in or out topology which implies LAN is in or out it > ... I would also consider optimizations to "sub-flood" the LAN (i.e. > disaggregate it to p2p floodings or nodes dropping

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread tony . li
Hello Robert, > For the purpose of this discussion can someone quote the definition of LAN ? Well, sure, if you insist. I’m surprised as you’ve been around for (quite) awhile and I would have thought that you picked up on this stuff. :-) :-) :-) ISO 10589v2 defines a LAN as a “Local Area

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread Robert Raszuk
For the purpose of this discussion can someone quote the definition of LAN ? Why ? *1* In most modern data centers I do not see any LANs. Even compute nodes are L3 nodes connected over /31 or /30 to TORs. From fabric IGP this is passive interface. *2* In slightly older DCs there are redundant

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-04-02 Thread tony . li
Hi Huaimo, > Can you give some details about: what is the rate limiting link addition and > how does it (the rate limiting link addition) fix or help fix the flooding > topology (FT) split when multiple failures occur on FT? The details of the wording will have to wait until someone (probably

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

2019-04-02 Thread Huaimo Chen
Hi Tony, Can you give some details about: what is the rate limiting link addition and how does it (the rate limiting link addition) fix or help fix the flooding topology (FT) split when multiple failures occur on FT? Best Regards, Huaimo -Original Message- From: Lsr

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
I agree as well. Thanks, Acee On 4/2/19, 1:26 PM, "Lsr on behalf of tony...@tony.li" wrote: I am in complete agreement with both Les’s extensive analysis and opinion. ;-) Tony > On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:37 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > In

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread tony . li
I am in complete agreement with both Les’s extensive analysis and opinion. ;-) Tony > On Apr 2, 2019, at 8:37 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > In reply to my own post, here is my opinion regarding including LANs in the > Flooding Topology: > > While I think it would be "nice" and

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
In reply to my own post, here is my opinion regarding including LANs in the Flooding Topology: While I think it would be "nice" and simplifying to be able to ignore LANs, I think we are unable to do so because the possibility that LANs are actually in use as transit links in some topologies

[Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

2019-04-02 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
(I have altered the subject so we can discuss the two issues in Tony's previous post separately.) There are several aspects to consider when discussing LAN support in the context of flooding optimizations: 1)Flooding topology advertisement (centralized mode only) Support for encoding LANs

Re: [Lsr] draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv

2019-04-02 Thread bruno.decraene
Les, Thank you for accommodating my comments. -02 looks good. 1 follow up comment: §3.2 "ISes MUST NOT accept purges that contain TLVs other than the authentication TLV" §3.1 " Therefore TLVs in a PDU which are disallowed MUST be ignored and MUST NOT cause the PDU itself to be rejected

Re: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...

2019-04-02 Thread tom petch
- Original Message - From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 8:07 AM > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > Additionally, I agree with Yingzhen's comment that it is not clear that > > we want a separate YANG module for every OSPF/IS-IS feature. > > As an