Authors,
The LSR Working Group Adoption Call has ended and there is sufficient support
and interest in working on this draft here in LSR.
Please republish the draft as draft-ietf-lsr-isis-extended-hierarchy-00.txt as
we agreed during the discussion initiated by Robert Raszuk during the adoption
onday, August 19, 2019 8:37 AM
To: Huaimo Chen mailto:huaimo.c...@futurewei.com>>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; Acee Lindem (acee)
mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hi
Huaimo –
Thanx for your support.
A few additional comments on top of Tony’s remarks.
Inline.
From: Lsr On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 8:37 AM
To: Huaimo Chen
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarc
Hi Huaimo,
> Support and have the following comments:
Thank you for your support and comments.
> It seems not necessary to have 8 levels of hierarchies. 3 or at most 4 levels
> of hierarchies should be enough. IS-IS with 3 levels of hierarchies may
> support a network with 1k*1k*1k nodes,
Hi Huaimo,
Ad 1 - Let me observe that constructing hierarchy is not always driven by
number of nodes in a given level can safely support. One could indeed build
a global flat link state network in single level/area if only looking at
number of nodes. But in number of cases benefits from hierarchy
Support and have the following comments:
1. It seems not necessary to have 8 levels of hierarchies. 3 or at most 4
levels of hierarchies should be enough. IS-IS with 3 levels of hierarchies may
support a network with 1k*1k*1k nodes, which is about 10^9 = 1 billion nodes.
IS-IS with 4
Hi Robert,
> Of course the objective of the draft is clear and I do not think anyone is
> questioning that. There was however topic of data and control plane
> congruence requirement and I think we all agreed by now that this is rather
> required in link state protocol as it is defined
> *Cc:* lsr@ietf.org; Aijun Wang ; Robert Raszuk
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical
> IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Aijun,
>
>
>
> Les kindly points out that what I’ve sugges
@ietf.org; Aijun Wang ; Robert Raszuk
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
Hi Aijun,
Les kindly points out that what I’ve suggested here is completely non-standard
and requires multiple IS-IS instances.
Tony
Hi Aijun,
Les kindly points out that what I’ve suggested here is completely non-standard
and requires multiple IS-IS instances.
Tony
> On Aug 16, 2019, at 9:03 AM, tony...@tony.li wrote:
>
> Hi Aijun,
>
>> If, as you stated, we connect R1 and R7 via one link(although we will not
>> do
Support.
> On Aug 12, 2019, at 8:33 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> This begins a two week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for the "Hierarchical
> IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01. The poll will end at 12:00
> AM UTC on August 27th, 2019. Please indicate your support of
Hi Aijun,
> If, as you stated, we connect R1 and R7 via one link(although we will not do
> so, if we design the network hierarchically), how you flood the link
> information hierarchically but let the traffic between the two connected L1
> area bypass the L2 area?
The link between R1 and R7
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
@ietf.org; Tony Li ; Acee Lindem (acee)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
+1
Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 13, 2019, 8:07 AM -0700, Robert Raszuk , wrote:
> lsr-isis-exte
Support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Aug 13, 2019, at 13:18, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>> On Aug 13, 2019, 8:07 AM -0700, Robert Raszuk , wrote:
>> > lsr-isis-extended-hierarchy
>>
>> Sounds great !
>>
>> ___
>> Lsr mailing list
>>
Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
+1
Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 13, 2019, 8:07 AM -0700, Robert Raszuk
mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>>, wrote:
> lsr-isis-extended-hierarchy
Sounds great !
___
Lsr mailin
Support!
Thanks,
Sarah
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 1:19 PM Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> +1
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> On Aug 13, 2019, 8:07 AM -0700, Robert Raszuk , wrote:
>
> > lsr-isis-extended-hierarchy
>
> Sounds great !
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
>
+1
Cheers,
Jeff
On Aug 13, 2019, 8:07 AM -0700, Robert Raszuk , wrote:
> > lsr-isis-extended-hierarchy
>
> Sounds great !
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
WFM…
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 11:04 AM
To: Acee Lindem , Robert Raszuk , Tony Li
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-is
> lsr-isis-extended-hierarchy
Sounds great !
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
;lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
> What would you suggest?
How about: draft-ietf-lsr-n-level-isis-00 ?
I don’t like this – if we are
From: Robert Raszuk
Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 10:49 AM
To: Tony Li
Cc: Acee Lindem , "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
> What would you suggest?
How about: draf
> What would you suggest?
How about: draft-ietf-lsr-n-level-isis-00 ?
r.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:42 PM wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> Thank you for your support. What would you suggest?
>
> Tony
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2019, at 6:40 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Support.
>
> However assuming the draft
Robert,
Thank you for your support. What would you suggest?
Tony
> On Aug 13, 2019, at 6:40 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Support.
>
> However assuming the draft will reach rough consensus of support I do
> recommend to change the title during the conversion to WG document. ISIS is
>
Support.
However assuming the draft will reach rough consensus of support I do
recommend to change the title during the conversion to WG document. ISIS is
already hierarchical today as even the abstract of the draft clearly says.
Thx,
R.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 11:57 PM Acee Lindem (acee)
Support.
Susan Hares
From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem
Date: Monday, August 12, 2019 at 5:58 PM
To: "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
This begins a two week LSR Working Group Adoption
Speaking as WG member:
Support adoptions.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of Acee Lindem
Date: Monday, August 12, 2019 at 5:58 PM
To: "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" -
draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01
This begins a two week LSR
Support as co-author.
T
> On Aug 12, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> This begins a two week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for the "Hierarchical
> IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01. The poll will end at 12:00
> AM UTC on August 27th, 2019. Please indicate
28 matches
Mail list logo
