Gyan,

On 26/02/2021 17:19, Gyan Mishra wrote:

MFI seems more like flex algo with multiple sub topologies sharing a common links in a  topology where RFC 8202 MI is separated at the process level separate LSDB.  So completely different and of course different goals and use cases for MI versus MFI.

I would not use the fle-algo analogy - all flex-algos operate on top of a single LSDB, contrary to what is being proposed in MFI draft.


 MFI also seems to be a flood reduction mechanism by creating multiple sub topology instances within a common LSDB.  There are a number of flood reduction drafts and this seems to be another method of achieving the same.

MFI draft proposes to keep the separate LSDB per MFI, so the above analogy is not correct either.

thanks,
Peter



Gyan

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:10 AM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:

    Aijun,

    How multi instance is implemented is at the discretion of a vendor.
    It can be one process N threads or N processes. It can be both and
    operator may choose.

    MFI is just one process - by the spec - so it is inferior.

    Cheers,
    R.


    On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:44 PM Aijun Wang <wang...@chinatelecom.cn
    <mailto:wang...@chinatelecom.cn>> wrote:

        Hi, Robert:

        Separate into different protocol instances can accomplish the
        similar task, but it has some deployment overhead.
        MFIs within one instance can avoid such cumbersome work, and
        doesn’t affect the basic routing calculation process.

        Aijun Wang
        China Telecom

        On Feb 26, 2021, at 19:00, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net
        <mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> wrote:

        Hi Yali,

            If this was precise, then the existing multi-instance
            mechanism would be sufficient.
            [Yali]: MFI is a different solution we recommend to solve
            this same and valuable issue.


        Well the way I understand this proposal MFI is much weaker
        solution in terms of required separation.

        In contrast RFC8202 allows to separate ISIS instances at the
        process level, but here MFIs as defined must be handled by the
        same ISIS process

            This document defines an extension to
            IS-IS to allow*one standard instance*  of
            the protocol to support multiple update
            process operations.

        Thx,
        R.

        _______________________________________________
        Lsr mailing list
        Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

--

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

/Network Solutions A//rchitect /

/M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
/Silver Spring, MD



_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to