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
Makes sense to me, thanks for the clarity...
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 12:14 PM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Huaimo Chen ; lsr@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org;
li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com; David Allan I
Subject: Re: [Lsr]
Robert –
Let’s please not introduce issues which are not relevant. ☺
Any flooding optimization solution only applies to a single LSDB – and the set
of nodes/links which support flooding of that LSDB. This means (in IS-IS speak):
· Level-1 is distinct from Level-2. I could choose to
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
Hi Dave,
There are two drafts containing the centralized solution and distributed
solution already on the table too. If the two drafts are adopted, they need to
be updated for one draft to focus on the centralized solution and the other on
the distributed solution. The former will have all the
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 Tony proposed
Hi Acee,
I agree with you on keeping the signaling for two modes. The other parts
for the distributed solution need to be removed.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 11:45 AM
To: Huaimo Chen ; Christian Hopps ;
lsr@ietf.org
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
