Les, all sounds to me unfortunately like a gripe (and a late one @ that now that things were worked on in WG for years & are ready to RFC being customer deployed, @ least flood reflection is).
Plus, unless you have a dramatically better idea than the drafts extended I fail to understand what your point is except as Tony1 says "we should not scale IGP higher?" (AFAIS hierarchy is not an answer here unless you ask customers for a flag day with lots new static configuration everywhere and possibly restructuring of their network to a hard-coded "hierarchy" and albeit such effort may work in some totalitarian countries on in pretty small networks, the majority of large ISIS customers will end such discussions in timeframe of single minutes clock count ;-) -- tony On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:23 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > (Subject was: RE: [Lsr] WG Last Call for "IS-IS Flood Reflection" > -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05) > > > > (Changing the subject as Acee has suggested that discussion of the problem > space is inappropriate for the WG LC thread) > > > > Tony (and everyone) – > > > > This isn’t the first contentious issue the WG has considered. By way of > comparison (hopefully a useful one), a number of folks (including you and > I) are participating in another contentious issue – fast-flooding. > > But for fast-flooding there is broad WG consensus that fast-flooding is > something that IS-IS should do. The contentious part is regarding what is > the best way to do it. And we are proceeding in a manner where different > algorithms are being tested while still in the WG document stage. And there > is hope (still TBD) that multiple algorithms may be able to interoperate. > > > > 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.) > > And, we have multiple proposals, none of which have any hope of > interoperating with each other. > > And we have had very little discussion about the problem space. (not your > fault – certainly you have been willing as have the authors of the > competing draft) > > > > So, at best, I think WG LC is premature. I would like to see more > discussion as to whether this is a problem that IGPs should solve as well > as a general look at how this might be done with and/or without the IGPs. > > And since all of the proposed solutions have been allocated code points, > they can continue to gain implementation/deployment experience in the > meantime. Therefore, I do not see that we need to make this choice now. > > > > 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. > > But for me, WG LC is at best premature. > > > > 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. > > > > Thanx for listening, > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> *On Behalf Of *Tony Li > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 7, 2021 2:53 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) < > a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" > -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 > > > > > > Les, > > > > And in response to Tony Li’s statement: “…the IETF is at its best when it > is documenting de facto standards” > > > > 1) I fully believe that our customers understand their requirements(sic) > better than we (vendors) do. But that does not mean that they understand > what is the best solution better than we do. > > When a customer comes to me and says “Can you do this?” my first response > is usually “Please fully describe your requirements independent of the > solution.” > > > > > > If it matters at all, Area Proxy is the result of a customer explaining > his issues and my attempt to address them. I’m sorry you don’t like my > proposal. > > > > > > 2)Not clear to me that there is an existing “de facto standard” here – > which is reinforced by the fact that we have so many different solutions > proposed. > > > > > > There isn’t. Yet. Thus, it’s not time to pick one vs. the other. > > > > Tony > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
