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, just referring to it? Thanks, Chris. [chair hat] > On Jun 18, 2020, at 11:38 PM, Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@futurewei.com> wrote: > > Hi Chris and Acee, and everyone, > > > > I would like to request working group adoption of "Topology-Transparent > Zone" > > (TTZ for short) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-isis-ttz/ .. > > > > This draft comprises the following solutions for helping to improve > scalability: > > 1) abstracting a zone to a single pseudo node in IS-IS, > > 2) abstracting a zone to a single pseudo node in OSPF, > > 3) abstracting a zone to zone edges' full mess in IS-IS, and > > 4) transferring smoothly between a zone and a single pseudo node. > > A zone is a block of an area (IS-IS L2 or L1 area, OSPF backbone or > > non-backbone area). > > > > When a network area becomes (too) big, we can reduce its size in the sense > > of its LSDB size through abstracting a zone to a single pseudo node or > > abstracting a few zones to a few pseudo nodes. > > > > While a zone is being abstracted (or transferred) to a single pseudo node, > > the network is stable. There is no or minimum service interruption. > > > > After abstracting a few zones to a few pseudo nodes, if we want to > reconstruct > > them, we can transfer (or roll) any of the pseudo nodes back to its zone > smoothly > > with no or minimum service interruption. > > > > We had a prototype implementation of abstracting a zone to zone edges' > full > > mess in OSPF. The procedures and related protocol extensions for transferring > > smoothly from a zone to zone edges' full mess are implemented and tested. > > A zone (block of an OSPF area) is smoothly transferred to its edges’ full mess > > without any routing disruptions. The routes on every router are stable while > > the zone is being transferred to its edges' mess. It is very easy to operate > > the transferring. > > > > There are two other drafts for improving scalability: "Area Proxy for > IS-IS" > > (Area Proxy for short) and "IS-IS Flood Reflection" (Flood Reflection for > short). > > > > "Area Proxy" https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-03 > > abstracts an existing IS-IS L1 area to a single pseudo node. > > > > "Flood Reflection" > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01 > > abstracts an existing IS-IS L1 area to its edges' connections via one or more > > flood reflectors. > > > > We believe that TTZ has some special advantages even though > > Area Proxy and Flood Reflection are very worthy. We would like > > to ask for working group adoption of TTZ. > > > Best Regards, > > Huaimo > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
