It’s very clear that this is inadequate.
It's not so clear to me, sorry. Does anyone have an example (link or jpg) of a (sensible) topology that would not work with multiple levels of hierarchy, but works nicely/better with area-proxies (or FRs) ? Just curious.
The structure of legacy IS-IS areas effectively precludes a scalable network for using lower levels for transit. This constrains ISPs to ‘cauliflower’ topology where you have L1 on the outside, L2 just inside of L1, L3 inside of L2, etc.
I understand. L1-8 forces a hierarchical network designs. But even if one would have the tools to design a non-hierarchical network, that doesn't mean one should do so. :-)
We already see networks who are unwilling to use the two levels that we have today due to this constraint.
I think L1-8 levels would be a good starting principle for designing large networks.
If there are spots in the network where the hierarchical constraints are a problem in the real world, indeed it would be nice to have tools like area-proxies in the tool-set, to help solve those problems. I would like to have both tools. I think you do too (as you are author of both drafts). henk. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
