ocol extensions remain untested.
>>> And since
>>> > enthusiasm for this work has waned - perhaps only temporarily - it
>>> seems
>>> > unlikely that these gaps will be closed in the immediate future.
>>> > Moving to standards track RFC with th
gt;> John
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:01 PM
>> > To: John E Drake ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> > ; John Scudder
>
t: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs -
draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding
I’ll point out that option 2 frees us from having to run an annual
exception process to renew the code points. I mean, if the draft is being
actively worked then of course keep it in draft, but don’t just version-b
From: John Scudder
Sent: 14 June 2022 21:49
Cc: John E Drake; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Tony Li; tom petch; Acee Lindem
(acee); lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs -
draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding
I’ll point out that option 2 frees us from having to run an annual
Lindem
(acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs -
draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding
John -
I would be inclined to agree with you - but...to my knowledge (happy to be
corrected...) -
There has been no interoperability testing.
It is really only possible to do
> Well, we can blame marketing all we want. All I know is that we, as a
> group, failed to come together and present a unified front with
> interoperable implementations. That left us in a position where marketing
> is pushing rocks up hills and customers are waiting for the dust to settle.
I
Robert,
> > So, can we PLEASE stop beating a dead horse?
>
> Are you stating that computing dynamic flooding topologies has no use case
> outside of MSDCs or for that matter ANY-DCs ?
There may be a zillion use cases. But there is not critical mass for deploying
this feature or other
Behalf Of John E Drake
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:23 AM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; John
> > Scudder
> > Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee
> > Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs -
> draft-ietf-lsr-dy
ely,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 4:01 PM
>> > To: John E Drake ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>> > ;
une 14, 2022 4:01 PM
> > To: John E Drake mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>; Les
> > Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; John Scudder
> > mailto:j...@juniper.net>>
> > Cc: Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>>; tom petch
> > ma
;> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; John
>> Scudder
>> Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee
>> Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
>> flooding
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't understand
une 14, 2022 4:01 PM
> > To: John E Drake ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > ; John Scudder
> > Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee
> Lindem
> > (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs -
> draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
> > flooding
>
rg (ginsberg)
> ; John Scudder
> Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee Lindem
> (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
> flooding
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> John -
>
> I w
; -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of John E Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:23 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; John
> Scudder
> Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee
> Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynami
June 14, 2022 11:23 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; John
> Scudder
> Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee
> Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
> flooding
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't understand why we
Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:19 PM
> To: John Scudder
> Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee Lindem
> (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
> flooding
>
> [External Email. Be cau
ve the draft content. I
think Experimental is the best way to do that.
Les
-Original Message-
From: John Scudder
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:46 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee
Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense
Scudder
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 7:46 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Tony Li ; tom petch ; Acee
> Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
> flooding
>
> Hi Les and all,
>
> > On
> On Jun 14, 2022, at 8:45 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
>
> If an experimental technology proves successful, it will be promoted to
> standards track. Two notable examples are GRE and PIM.
> BIER may be another that eventually become standards track.
LISP is going through this process
Hi Les and all,
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never actually
> published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"?
>
> The logic of that escapes me.
It so happens I recently became aware that this
If an experimental technology proves successful, it will be promoted to
standards track. Two notable examples are GRE and PIM.
BIER may be another that eventually become standards track.
Thanks,
Acee
On 6/14/22, 8:41 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 14:29, Tony Li
> On Jun 14, 2022, at 08:41, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jun 13, 2022, at 14:29, Tony Li wrote:
>>
>> It used to be that the path to publication was brief. We’ve now ossified to
>> the point where a technology can go through an entire life-cycle before we
>> act.
>
> Yes, but we
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 14:29, Tony Li wrote:
>
> It used to be that the path to publication was brief. We’ve now ossified to
> the point where a technology can go through an entire life-cycle before we
> act.
Yes, but we also seemed to publish everything as Informational then too. :-D
defining those algorithms first
>> have to progress
>>
>> To me, that makes "Experimental" the right track as further work is required
>> before we can say that all aspects of the draft are mature enough to
>> consider Standards track.
>>
>
draft are mature enough to
consider Standards track.
>
> Les
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Tony Li
>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 10:12 AM
>> To: tom petch
>> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; l
Les,
> So you are suggesting that we publish something that was never actually
> published as an RFC as a "historic RFC"?
Yes, I see no point in being indirect. It used to be that the path to
publication was brief. We’ve now ossified to the point where a technology can
go through an
afts defining those algorithms first
> have to progress
> >
> > To me, that makes "Experimental" the right track as further work is
> required before we can say that all aspects of the draft are mature enough to
> consider Standards track.
> >
> > Les
&
the draft are mature enough to consider
> Standards track.
>
> Les
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Tony Li
>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 10:12 AM
>> To: tom petch
>> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
>> Subje
-Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 10:12 AM
> To: tom petch
> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs - draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-
> flooding
>
>
> Tom,
>
&g
Tom,
In this particular case, I believe the choices are Experimental or Historic.
I’m fine with either.
T
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 8:43 AM, tom petch wrote:
>
> From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
>
> Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10
>
> Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in
there should be a preso this ietf in rtg wg showing a framework that can be
used to evaluate such questions. if time permits (per Jeff). tony
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 5:43 PM tom petch wrote:
> From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) 40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10
>
>
From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 10 June 2022 15:10
Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in reducing the flooding
overhead in dense drafts. Now, it seems the interest and energy has waned. IMO,
this draft contains some very valuable extensions to the IGPs. I
Hi Acee,
Yes, the Arista implementation shipped.
T
> On Jun 10, 2022, at 7:10 AM, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
>
> Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in reducing the flooding
> overhead in dense drafts. Now, it seems the interest and energy has waned.
> IMO, this draft
Initially, there was a lot interest and energy in reducing the flooding
overhead in dense drafts. Now, it seems the interest and energy has waned. IMO,
this draft contains some very valuable extensions to the IGPs. I discussed this
with the editors and one suggestion was to go ahead and publish
34 matches
Mail list logo
