I support the area-proxy draft. I think both the area-proxy draft and the flood-reflection drafts are a bit hacky. However, the result of the area-proxy draft has a certain elegance: only one L2 LSP per area in the backbone. The flood-reflection draft is just messy, imho. 1) The edge-routers of each area are still visible in L2. Making the L2 scaling benefits a factor less, compared to area-proxy. 2) You need a new tunneling technology to flood LSPs between edge-routers and the flood-reflector. Even when you simply use TCP, this adds new and unnecessary complexity. 3) You either need to tunnel user-traffic between edge-routers. Or you redistribute all L2 prefixes into L1. Negating the benefit of having L1-only routers in your transit area. I don't like either option. BTW, personally I think the proper solution to scale IS-IS to larger networks is 8 levels of hierarchy. Too bad that idea gets so little push from vendors and operators. henk. Christian Hopps schreef op 2020-06-10 21:27:
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ The draft would be adopted on the Experimental track. Please indicate your support or objection by June 24, 2020. Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Thanks, Chris and Acee. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
