I would support the IS-IS TTZ solution for WG adoption.
With Regards
Anil S N
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:38 AM Uma Chunduri wrote:
> I would support the IS-IS TTZ solution for WG adoption.
>
>
> Of course, obviously not with OSPF encodings or concepts only relevant to
> OSPF (thx for the updated version).
>
> Thanks for the good work which was started way back on TTZs with OSPF
> protocol first (RFC 8099).
>
>
> I will send my specific comments/suggestions a bit later.
>
> --
>
> Uma C.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:38 PM Huaimo Chen
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris and Acee, and everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to request working group adoption of
>> "Topology-Transparent Zone"
>>
>> (TTZ for short) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-isis-ttz/ .
>>
>>
>> This draft comprises the following solutions for helping to improve
>> scalability:
>>
>> 1) abstracting a zone to a single pseudo node in IS-IS,
>>
>> 2) abstracting a zone to a single pseudo node in OSPF,
>>
>> 3) abstracting a zone to zone edges' full mess in IS-IS, and
>>
>> 4) transferring smoothly between a zone and a single pseudo node..
>>
>> A zone is a block of an area (IS-IS L2 or L1 area, OSPF backbone or
>>
>> non-backbone area).
>>
>>
>>
>> When a network area becomes (too) big, we can reduce its size in the
>> sense
>>
>> of its LSDB size through abstracting a zone to a single pseudo node or
>>
>> abstracting a few zones to a few pseudo nodes.
>>
>>
>>
>> While a zone is being abstracted (or transferred) to a single pseudo
>> node,
>>
>> the network is stable. There is no or minimum service interruption.
>>
>>
>>
>> After abstracting a few zones to a few pseudo nodes, if we want to
>> reconstruct
>>
>> them, we can transfer (or roll) any of the pseudo nodes back to its zone
>> smoothly
>>
>> with no or minimum service interruption.
>>
>>
>>
>> We had a prototype implementation of abstracting a zone to zone
>> edges' full
>>
>> mess in OSPF. The procedures and related protocol extensions for
>> transferring
>>
>> smoothly from a zone to zone edges' full mess are implemented and tested..
>>
>> A zone (block of an OSPF area) is smoothly transferred to its edges’ full
>> mess
>>
>> without any routing disruptions. The routes on every router are stable
>> while
>>
>> the zone is being transferred to its edges' mess. It is very easy to
>> operate
>>
>> the transferring.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are two other drafts for improving scalability: "Area Proxy
>> for IS-IS"
>>
>> (Area Proxy for short) and "IS-IS Flood Reflection" (Flood Reflection for
>> short).
>>
>>
>>
>> "Area Proxy"
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03
>>
>> abstracts an existing IS-IS L1 area to a single pseudo node.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Flood Reflection"
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01
>>
>> abstracts an existing IS-IS L1 area to its edges' connections via one or
>> more
>>
>> flood reflectors.
>>
>>
>>
>> We believe that TTZ has some special advantages even though
>>
>> Area Proxy and Flood Reflection are very worthy. We would like
>>
>> to ask for working group adoption of TTZ.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Huaimo
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
