Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread Robert Raszuk
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

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread David Allan I
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]

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
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

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread tony . li
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

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread Robert Raszuk
> 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

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread Huaimo Chen
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

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
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

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread Huaimo Chen
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

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

2019-02-03 Thread Abdussalam Baryun
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