Support as co-author.
Thanks,
Liu
Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 于2020年8月18日周二
下午3:52写道：
> Huaimo –
>
>
>
> The question I and others have asked is “what can we do with zones that
> cannot be done with areas?”.
>
>
>
> From the day several years ago when IS-IS TTZ was first presented, your
> answer has been “with zones you can hitlessly alter the topological
> boundaries”.
>
> My response has consistently been “we can already do that with areas”.
>
>
> If you want to justify zones, you then need to provide some other use case
> that either cannot be done using areas or cannot be done hitlessly.
>
> Continuing to focus on something that can already be done with areas isn’t
> helping you.
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Huaimo Chen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:18 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone"
> - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
>
>
> > It is possible to merge/split areas without adjacency flaps.
>
> [HC]: While an existing area or zone is being abstracted as a single
> node or vice versa, there are the adjacency ups and downs. The areas
> merging/splitting without adjacency flaps has been done before this
> abstraction and will not reduce the service interruption during the
> abstraction.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Huaimo
> --
>
> *From:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:59 PM
> *To:* Huaimo Chen ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
> ginsberg=40cisco@dmarc.ietf..org >;
> Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org <
> lsr@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone"
> - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
>
>
>
> Huaimo –
>
>
>
> It is possible to merge/split areas without adjacency flaps.
>
> The technique has been known for many years.
>
> It requires careful planning – but it is quite feasible and has been done.
>
>
>
> You cannot justify the need for zones on this basis..
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr *On Behalf Of *Huaimo Chen
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:33 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >; Acee Lindem (acee) <
> acee=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent
> Zone" - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
>
>
> > I see no need for “abstraction at arbitrary boundaries”.. Areas work just
> fine.
>
> > IS-IS already has smooth transition capability for merging/splitting
> areas...
>
>
>
> [HC]: The smooth transition capability for merging/splitting areas in
> IS-IS will not reduce the service interruption while an existing area or
> zone is being abstracted as a single node because the adjacency ups and
> downs.
>
>
>
> > Given both of the points above, I see no value in “smooth transition
> to/from zone abstraction”.
>
>
>
> [HC]: The "smooth transition to/from zone abstraction" will reduce the
> service interruption while an existing area or zone is being abstracted as
> a single node and vice versa.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Huaimo
> --
>
> *From:* Lsr on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
> ginsberg=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:06 PM
> *To:* Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org <
> lsr@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent
> Zone" - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
>
>
>
> I see no need for “abstraction at arbitrary boundaries”. Areas work just
> fine.
>
>
>
> IS-IS already has smooth transition capability for merging/splitting areas.
>
>
>
> Given both of the points above, I see no value in “smooth transition
> to/from zone abstraction”.
>
>
>
> If these are the principal distinguishing characteristics of TTZ as
> compared to area proxy (and I would agree they are), then I see no reason
> why this solution should be pursued as well.
>
>
>
> I am therefore opposed to WG adoption of TTZ.
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr *On Behalf Of *Acee Lindem (acee)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 7:17 AM
> *To:* lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent
> Zone" - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt
>
>
>
>
>
> Based on the discussions in the last meeting and on the mailing list
> regarding draft-chen-isis-ttz-11, the chairs feel that there are enough
> differences with draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03 and in the community to
> consider advancing it independently on the experimental track.
>
>
>
> These differences include abstraction at arbitrary boundaries and IS-IS
> extensions for smooth transition to/from zone abstraction.
>
>
>
> We are now starting an LSR WG adoption call for
> draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt. Please indicate your support or objection to
> adoption prior to Tuesday, September 2nd, 2020.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee and Chris
>
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
