Tony - From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:52 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: Using L1 for Transit Traffic in IS-IS
Les, Here, I am not convinced that there is broad WG consensus that this is a problem that the IGPs should solve. (If I am wrong on that I presume the WG members will let me know.) I can’t believe what I’m hearing. The problem that we’re solving is IGP scalability. Your saying that IGPs shouldn’t scale better???? I’m having a hard time believing that this is you, Les. [LES:] I’ll take that as a compliment. 😊 You can’t justify any and all changes by saying “It improves scalability”. Right now my opinion is that the nature of the changes are so inconsistent with the design of the protocol that the badness outweighs the goodness. I realize that you are not the one asking for WG LC and I don’t know when you plan to do so and I am not trying to influence you in that regard. Me, I’m ready to ask that we just progress Area Proxy to RFC as experimental. [LES:] Thanx for the clarification. As regards you trying to solve a real world customer ask, I was aware of that. And I believe the authors of flood-reflection can make the same claim. So then why are you accusing us of something else? [LES:] I didn’t make an accusation. My comment was that just because a customer proposes a specific solution that does not mean it is the best way to solve the problem – or even a good way to solve the problem. I have no doubt that both proposals are well intentioned and were driven by a real customer ask. You wouldn’t have spent the time you have otherwise. Les Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
