[Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01

[Sharma, Alankar]

I support the adoption of this draft.

Not aware of any relevant IPR at Comcast.

Thanks,
Alankar
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

[Lsr] Call for WG adoption of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01

[Sharma, Alankar]

We support the adoption of draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection.

Thanks,
Alankar
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] IS-IS Requirements for Area Abstraction (Corrected Alias for ADs)

[Sharma, Alankar]

Acee and Chris,
The flood-reflector draft solves a legitimate problem for large networks. This 
is of high interest.

Thanks,
Alankar





On January 27, 2020 at 1:27:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) 
(a...@cisco.com)

wrote:



Speaking as WG Co-chair:







At IETF 107, we had a protracted discussion of several drafts having  goal

of reducing the amount of link-state information that must be flooded into

the level-2 area. We have two drafts that do this essentially via

abstraction of the level-1 areas. These are:







https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt



https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chen-isis-ttz-07.txt







There are various reasons why these drafts can't consolidated involving

both IPR and government restrictions. Refer to

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-lsr-00 for

the complete discussion.







We have another draft that also reduces the amount of link-state

information each IS-IS router must maintain but using IS-IS reflectors.

This is slightly different but also avoids leaking all the level-1 area

link-state to the level-2 area.







https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01.txt







Given the amount of overlap and the conflicts amongst these drafts, the

chairs/Ads are now asking whether there is a really a strong requirement to

advance one or more of these documents. Especially given that we are

already moving forward with both IS-IS/OSPF flooding reductions and the

Hierarchal IS-IS work. Additionally,  we anticipate we'll reach an impasse

in consolidating these drafts. We'd really like to hear from the operators

that would deploy these mechanisms.







Thanks,

Acee and Chris

  *   [Lsr] IS-IS Requirements for Area Abstraction 
(...  
Acee Lindem (acee)
  *   Re: [Lsr] IS-IS Requirements for Area 
Abstracti...
  Alvaro Retana
  *   Re: [Lsr] IS-IS Requirements for Area 
Abstracti...
  Tony Przygienda

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr