On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:22 PM Tony Li wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
>
> > The new LSP seems to imply a forklift of the whole network which area
> proxy does not require, in fact flood reflection has been carefully
> constructed to touch minimum possible amount of nodes in the network and
> additionally
Tony,
> The new LSP seems to imply a forklift of the whole network which area proxy
> does not require, in fact flood reflection has been carefully constructed to
> touch minimum possible amount of nodes in the network and additionally allow
> a node-by-node migration.
To be accurate, area
so valuable
>
>> This does not mean that we should not support experimentation – and in
> this case I think we are doing so.
>
> Gyan> Agreed. And be able to progress both experimental to RFC and let
> the industry decide on the best solution and then progress that solu
ctual deployment.
>
> What justifies doubling that effort?
>
>
>
> Thanx.
>
>
>
> Les
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2021 5:46 PM
> *To:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) ; Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <
> muthu.a...@gmail.com>; Tony Li ; Tony Przygienda <
> tonysi...@gmail.com>; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Le
: Friday, December 10, 2021 10:56 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
; Tony Li ; Tony Przygienda
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Hi Les
My thoughts are that as both of these drafts are experimental, if both get
ink you can appreciate that implementation of either solution is
>>> non-trivial – as is insuring interoperability – as is the actual deployment.
>>>
>>> What justifies doubling that effort?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanx.
>>>
>>&g
ng that effort?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanx.
>>
>>
>>
>> Les
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gyan Mishra
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2021 5:46 PM
>> *To:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
>> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsbe
> *Sent:* Friday, December 10, 2021 5:46 PM
> *To:* Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
> *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
> ginsb...@cisco.com>; Tony Li ; Tony Przygienda <
> tonysi...@gmail.com>; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Tra
; Tony Przygienda
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
All
As Acee mentioned per the subject of this thread “Using L1 for transit traffic
in IS-IS” is supported today and is deployed by operators with large backbones
as well today, and both solutions, area
comfortable, I encourage folks who wish to
>> deploy such solutions to share their requirements and discuss how each of
>> the solutions*
>>
>> *address their requirements/fall short of addressing their requirements.
>> I think this would help the WG discover better w
forward.*
>
>
>
> **
>
>
>
> Don’t think we have made progress in that regard…
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Acee Lindem (acee)
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 9, 2021 1:59 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Przygienda <
;lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>, Acee
Lindem mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Let me try to clarify my position…
Two disjoint sets of authors looked at the same problem space and independently
came up w
t;lsr@ietf.org" , Tony Li
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Hi Les,
I know you don’t feel that the IGP should solve this problem but there was lots
of interest in the three solutions to reduce the overhead when using IS-IS L1
as transit for IS- IS L2. Let’s not re
again until next week…
Thanks,
Acee
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 2:05 PM
To: Tony Przygienda
Cc: Tony Li , "lsr@ietf.org" , Acee Lindem
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Let me try to clarify my position
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:05 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
> ...
>
> I don’t believe the WG has reached consensus that the IGPs should be
> extended to address the problem.
>
AFAI the process for that is an adoption call. And with a quick look I see
you on
Sun, Jun 21, 2020
supporting the
appropriately.
Thanx for listening.
Les
From: Tony Przygienda
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 5:27 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Li ; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Les, all sounds to me unfortunately like a gripe
Les,
> You can’t justify any and all changes by saying “It improves scalability”.
Very true. Only the ones that do. Which in this case is accurate.
> Right now my opinion is that the nature of the changes are so inconsistent
> with the design of the protocol that the badness outweighs
Les, all sounds to me unfortunately like a gripe (and a late one @ that now
that things were worked on in WG for years & are ready to RFC being
customer deployed, @ least flood reflection is).
Plus, unless you have a dramatically better idea than the drafts extended
I fail to understand what
Tony -
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:52 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Les,
Here, I am not convinced that there is broad WG consensus that this is a
problem that
Les,
> Here, I am not convinced that there is broad WG consensus that this is a
> problem that the IGPs should solve. (If I am wrong on that I presume the WG
> members will let me know.)
I can’t believe what I’m hearing. The problem that we’re solving is IGP
scalability. Your saying that
I agree with Les.
We are rushing to the solutions for the none universal problems that should not
be solved by IGP.
There are many ways to implement the network connections, why design IGP areas
in so strange manner and let the IGP behave BGP like?
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Dec 8, 2021,
(Subject was: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for "IS-IS Flood Reflection"
-draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05)
(Changing the subject as Acee has suggested that discussion of the problem
space is inappropriate for the WG LC thread)
Tony (and everyone) –
This isn’t the first contentious issue the
23 matches
Mail list logo
