Hi Robert, Thanks for your comments. But one process N threads or N processes, which is indeed a implementation not a protocol. Hence, we do not discuss this problem in this draft.
I fully agree with Gyan. MFIs share a common adjacencies, and a single LSDB. And each MFI can have its own flooding sub topology and its customized flooding parameters. Best regards, Yali From: Gyan Mishra [mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2021 12:19 AM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: Aijun Wang <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; Huzhibo <huzh...@huawei.com>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; wangyali <wangyal...@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt 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. 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. 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 -- [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com/> Gyan Mishra Network Solutions Architect M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
