Huaimo –
Some responses inline.
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Huaimo Chen
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 8:16 PM
To: Tony Li
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; Acee Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Hi Tony,
>From: Tony Li [mailto:tony1
Hi Tony,
>From: Tony Li [mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:32 AM
>To: Huaimo Chen
>Cc: Peter Psenak ; Acee Lindem (acee) ;
>Christian Hopps >; lsr@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
&
Hi Huaimo,
> The way in which the flooding topology converges in the centralized
> mode/solution is different from
> that in the distributed mode/solution. In the former, after receiving the
> link states for the failures,
> the leader computes a new flooding topology and floods it to every
Hi Peter,
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 10:39 AM
>To: Huaimo Chen ; Acee Lindem (acee) ;
>Christian
>Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
&
Lindem (acee)
; Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Hi Huaimo,
On 03/02/2019 17:58 , Huaimo Chen wrote:
Hi Acee,
I agree with you on keeping the signaling for two modes. The
other parts for the distributed solution need
Hi Peter,
>-Original Message-
>From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 2:30 AM
>To: Huaimo Chen ; Acee Lindem (acee) ;
>Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
ay, February 14, 2019 2:30 AM
> To: Huaimo Chen ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
> Hi Huaimo,
>
> On 13/02/20
ry 14, 2019 2:30 AM
> To: Huaimo Chen ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> ; Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
> Hi Huaimo,
>
> On 13/02/2019 22:50 , Huaimo Chen wrote:
> > Hi Pete
[mailto:ppse...@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:58 AM
> > To: Huaimo Chen ; Acee Lindem (acee)
> > ; Christian Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
> >
> > Hi Huaimo,
> >
&g
Hopps ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Hi Huaimo,
On 03/02/2019 17:58 , Huaimo Chen wrote:
Hi Acee,
I agree with you on keeping the signaling for two modes. The other
parts for the distributed solution need to be removed.
optimized
3, 2019 11:45 AM
> *To:* Huaimo Chen ; Christian Hopps
> ; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft
> Redux]
>
>
>
> Hi Huaimo,
>
>
>
> See inline.
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> o
Hi Peter,
Many thx for your comment.
What I had in mind here was use of multi instance (=2) over very reach
physical topologies. So when we construct flooding graph for each such
instance - even in centralized mode - the intention was to avoid flooding
to take common links (just to reduce the
Hi Robert,
On 03/02/2019 21:37 , Robert Raszuk wrote:
I fully agree and support proceeding with draft-li-dyanmic-flooding and
to include protocol extensions in it for centralized topology
propagation as well as basic hooks like "execute dynamic protocol number
X" for distributed calculations.
imo
*From:* Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 3, 2019 11:45 AM
*To:* Huaimo Chen ; Christian Hopps
; lsr@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Hi Huaimo,
See inline.
*From: *Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on
I agree totally with Chris on these points. Furthermore, the choices that
operators will have are with the flooding algorithms. We need work on the
generalized signaling in order to allow the algorithm work to proceed.
Thanks,
Acee
On 2/4/19, 8:21 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Christian Hopps"
Aijun Wang writes:
Hi, Christian:
Based on your information, it is more fair to adopt these two drafts as WG
documents at the same time. The reasons are the followings:
1. The centralized and distributed modes don’t conflict with each other. Anyone
can contribute their thoughts on them at
., we do not
support MT specific flooding)
HTH
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2019 12:37 PM
To: Tony Li
Cc: Huaimo Chen ; cho...@chopps.org; David Allan I
; li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding
] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
I think that this discussion would be greatly clarified if we clearly separated
the discussion between
a) the algorithm for computing the flooding topology, and
b) the signaling to indicate how to proceed.
I think that we are all in agreement
Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
>
> I think that this discussion would be greatly clarified if we clearly
> separated
> the discussion between
>
> a) the algorithm for computing the flooding topology, and
> b) the signaling to indic
I fully agree and support proceeding with draft-li-dyanmic-flooding and to
include protocol extensions in it for centralized topology propagation as
well as basic hooks like "execute dynamic protocol number X" for
distributed calculations.
However one may observe that separate distributed
I think that this discussion would be greatly clarified if we clearly separated
the discussion between
a) the algorithm for computing the flooding topology, and
b) the signaling to indicate how to proceed.
I think that we are all in agreement that the algorithms can and should be
separated
> The former will have all the good parts for the centralized solution, and
the latter will have all the good parts for the distributed solution.
And in your view which draft should contain required protocol extensions to
accommodate both solutions ?
Or are you suggesting that we should have
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Hi Huaimo,
See inline.
From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of
Huaimo Chen mailto:huaimo.c...@huawei.com>>
Date: Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:27 AM
To: Christian Hopps mailto:cho...@chopps.
...@chopps.org
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
With all respect, there are other distributed solutions on the table…
Cheers
Dave
From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of li
zhenqiang
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 1
Hi Huaimo,
See inline.
From: Lsr on behalf of Huaimo Chen
Date: Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:27 AM
To: Christian Hopps , "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Hi Everyone,
We proposed the distributed solution first, and Ton
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:06 AM Aijun Wang
wrote:
> Hi, Christian:
>
> Based on your information, it is more fair to adopt these two drafts as WG
> documents at the same time. The reasons are the followings:
> 1. The centralized and distributed modes don’t conflict with each other.
> Anyone can
Sound like best plan fwd.
Thx,
R.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 13:26 Christian Hopps
> Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction:
>
> - We have a well written original work that came first and described the
> problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution
>
Hi, Christian:
Based on your information, it is more fair to adopt these two drafts as WG
documents at the same time. The reasons are the followings:
1. The centralized and distributed modes don’t conflict with each other. Anyone
can contribute their thoughts on them at their interests.
2. They
@ietf.org
Cc: cho...@chopps.org
Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction:
- We have a well written original work that came first and described the
problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized
To: lsr@ietf.org
>> Cc: cho...@chopps.org
>> Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>>
>>
>> Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction:
>>
>> - We have a well written original work that came first and descr
Support the proposal.
Regards,
- Naiming
> On Feb 1, 2019, at 4:25 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
> Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction:
>
> - We have a well written original work that came first and described the
> problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a
I am in favor of this proposal.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 4:26 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: cho...@chopps.org
> Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>
>
Hi Chris,
sounds good to me.
thanks,
Peter
On 01/02/2019 13:25 , Christian Hopps wrote:
Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction:
- We have a well written original work that came first and described the
problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution
Agreed
Cheers
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 4:26 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: cho...@chopps.org
Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction
ruary 1, 2019 7:26 AM
>> To: lsr@ietf.org
>> Cc: cho...@chopps.org
>> Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]
>>
>>
>> Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction:
>>
>> - We have a well written original work
Chris & Acee,
This looks fine to me.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 7:26 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: cho...@chopps.org
> Subject: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding
Summary of where we are at with dynamic flooding reduction:
- We have a well written original work that came first and described the
problems as well as a TLVs to allow for a centralized solution
(draft-li-dyanmic-flooding). We do not need to standardize the centralized
algorithm.
- A small
37 matches
Mail list logo
