Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Tony Li
Hi Huaimo, > Differences between OSPF TTZ and OSPF Area Proxy (note: assume that OSPF > Area Proxy is similar to IS-IS Area Proxy even though OSPF Area Proxy is not > defined in the Area Proxy draft) include: That’s an unfortunate assumption. We have not defined OSPF Area Proxy because

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Christian Hopps
> On Jul 7, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Huaimo Chen wrote: > > Hi Acee and Chris, > > Thank you very much for your comments. > > > I agree with Chris – when the IS-IS TTZ draft adopted the approach of > > having the area/zone leader originate a single LSP abstracting the > > zone/area last Oct,

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Huaimo - Sorry for ascribing area merging properties to zones. As the base protocol mechanism in IS-IS can be used both to split and merge areas I was thinking zones could be used the same way, but I see on closer reading that you have restricted a zone to be a subset of an area (which could

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Huaimo Chen
Hi Tony and Chris, Thank you very much for your comments. Moreover, TTZ provides smooth transferring between a zone and its single pseudo node. That is that a zone can be smoothly transferred to a single pseudo node, and the pseudo node can be smoothly rolled back to the zone. This strikes

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread tony . li
Hi Aijun, Subdividing an existing area is entirely possible with Area Proxy. You just have to split the area and then apply Area Proxy. ;-) Tony > On Jul 7, 2020, at 7:36 PM, Aijun Wang wrote: > > Hi, Les: > > Using TTZ to sub divide the existing area seems more attractive. It seems TTZ

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Huaimo Chen
Hi Chris, Thank you very much for your comments. My answers/explanations are inline below with prefix [HC]. Best Regards, Huaimo From: Christian Hopps Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 9:21 PM To: Huaimo Chen Cc: Christian Hopps; Acee Lindem (acee);

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Huaimo Chen
Hi Acee and Chris, Thank you very much for your comments. > I agree with Chris – when the IS-IS TTZ draft adopted the approach of having > the area/zone leader originate a single LSP abstracting the zone/area last > Oct, the main differentiation between the two approaches is the zone/area

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Les: Using TTZ to sub divide the existing area seems more attractive. It seems TTZ can accomplish all the functions Area Proxy can provide, but area proxy can’t cover the scenarios that TTZ can solve. Why don’t we prefer to TTZ? Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Jul 8, 2020, at 08:53, Les

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Huaimo Chen
Hi Acee, Thank you very much for your comments. My answers/explanations are inline below with prefix [HC]. Best Regards, Huaimo From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 4:33 PM To: Huaimo Chen ; Christian Hopps Cc: lsr@ietf.org ;

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Christian Hopps
Hi Huaimo, Can you speak to the differences of this with Area Proxy? They are similar solutions, right? There's an existing experimental track OSPF RFC (RFC8099) already for TTZ so i found it confusing to have this document also talking about TTZ for OSPF; is it redefining it, updating it,

[Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt

2020-07-07 Thread tony . li
Hi all, We’ve updated our draft to revise the TLV encodings along the lines of the discussions we’ve been having. 1) The Area Proxy Router Capability is removed. 2) The Inside Node TLV is removed. Instead, the Area Proxy TLV is used instead. 3) The Area Segment SID is advertised inside of a

[Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt

2020-07-07 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF. Title : Area Proxy for IS-IS Authors : Tony Li Sarah Chen

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Huaimo Chen
Hi Chris, Thank you very much for your questions. My answers/explanations are inline below with prefix [HC]. Best Regards, Huaimo From: Christian Hopps Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 8:08 AM To: Huaimo Chen Cc: Christian Hopps; lsr@ietf.org;

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Huaimo - In regards to merging/splitting areas, IS-IS base protocol provides a way to do this hitlessly (this was discussed some years ago when IS-IS TTZ draft was first introduced). So if the major difference/advantage between area-proxy and ttz is the ability to use zones to handle area

Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of END Point behavior in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

2020-07-07 Thread Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Hi Parag, Yes, it can be the last SID. When SL=0 you ignore the SRH and process the next header in the header chain. Upper-layer header processing is defined in 4.1.1. If you would like to remove the SRH with the End behavior you can use PSP, USP or USD flavors to do so. Regards, Pablo. From:

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Huaimo Chen
Hi Les, Thank you very much for your comments. There are still some differences between Area Proxy and TTZ regarding to IS-IS with smooth area splitting and merging. At first, the operations/configurations are different. Using Area Proxy, two steps are needed. One step is to

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Christian Hopps
> On Jul 7, 2020, at 12:00 PM, Huaimo Chen wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Thank you very much for your questions. > My answers/explanations are inline below with prefix [HC]. > > Best Regards, > Huaimo > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 8:08 AM > To: Huaimo Chen > Cc:

Re: [Lsr] [IANA #1173602] Re: IANA early allocation request for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode

2020-07-07 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Gunter is on vacation... Thanks, Acee On 7/6/20, 1:14 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" wrote: Hi Ketan, Peter, I believe we're waiting for Gunter to approve as the remaining expert, but we can move ahead if Peter confirms that we don't need to wait. Best regards, Amanda On

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking as WG member: Hi Huaimo, Independent of the major issue with Area Proxy differentiation, I have a couple other issues that I didn’t want to include in the same Email thread. 1. You can’t describe IS-IS protocol details and then just include OSPF encodings and expect the readers

[Lsr] [IANA #1173602] Re: IANA early allocation request for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode

2020-07-07 Thread Amanda Baber via RT
Peter, should we go ahead? thanks, Amanda On Tue Jul 07 20:14:48 2020, a...@cisco.com wrote: > Gunter is on vacation... > Thanks, > Acee > > On 7/6/20, 1:14 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" > wrote: > > Hi Ketan, Peter, > > I believe we're waiting for Gunter to approve as the remaining expert, >

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread tony . li
>> Moreover, TTZ provides smooth transferring between a zone and its single >> pseudo node. That is that a zone can be smoothly transferred to a single >> pseudo node, and the pseudo node can be smoothly rolled back to the zone. > > This strikes me as the important difference from area proxy.

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Huaimo - I think what you are highlighting is that w TTZ an operator could apply the solution to a subset of an area (which you call a zone) - or to a set of areas (which you also call a zone). This presumes that it is expected that a customer would want to operate in a mode where the

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Acee Lindem (acee)
Speaking as WG member: I agree with Chris – when the IS-IS TTZ draft adopted the approach of having the area/zone leader originate a single LSP abstracting the zone/area last Oct, the main differentiation between the two approaches is the zone/area terminology. The other substantive difference

Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

2020-07-07 Thread Huaimo Chen
Hi Les, > I think what you are highlighting is that w TTZ an operator could apply the > solution to a subset of an area (which you call a zone) – or to a set of > areas (which you also call a zone). This presumes that it is expected that a > customer would want to operate in a mode where the