[Lsr] 答复: LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

2019-08-15 Thread Aijun Wang
Some comments on this draft: 1. The size of network is increasing, but it is becoming more flat. Is it the right direction to make the network more hierarchical? 2. More hierarchical network means the traffic will also be traversed in hierarchical way, is it more efficient? 3. Is there any ot

Re: [Lsr] 答复: LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

2019-08-15 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking as LSR WG Member: Hi Aijun, I agree that most deployments will not move to greater than two levels given that we’ve gone this many decades with two and the predominant underlay deployment is one level. However, there appears to be sufficient interest and couple with good technical work

Re: [Lsr] 答复: LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

2019-08-15 Thread tony . li
Hi Aijun, > 1. The size of network is increasing, but it is becoming more flat. Is it the > right direction to make the network more hierarchical? Well, given that we’re talking a link state protocol running SPF over a database in O(n log n) time, it’s pretty clear that we don’t want to scal

Re: [Lsr] 答复: LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

2019-08-15 Thread Robert Raszuk
Hi Tony, > The hierarchical arrangement of the control plane does NOT imply that the data plane is necessarily hierarchical. Since Aijun posted his question I was trying to think of such model, but failed. While it is easy to envision this with DV protocols say BGP - do you have any pointer to a

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

2019-08-15 Thread tony . li
Hi Robert, > > The hierarchical arrangement of the control plane does NOT imply that the > > data plane is necessarily hierarchical. > > Since Aijun posted his question I was trying to think of such model, but > failed. > > While it is easy to envision this with DV protocols say BGP - do

[Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-04

2019-08-15 Thread Russ Housley via Datatracker
Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more

[Lsr] 答复: 答复: LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

2019-08-15 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Acee: It’s interesting to extend the ISIS hierarchical in this way. What I considering is the complexity of its deployment in future. Maybe we can discuss/emphasizes on this aspect deep later. Best Regards. Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun..

[Lsr] 答复: LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

2019-08-15 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Tony: Would you like to elaborate this in more detail to show how you design the control plane hierarchically but the traffic can be transported horizontally? Let’s consider the following graph: If, as you stated, we connect R1 and R7 via one link(although we will not do so, if we