+1 Hopefully this would help us understand the use cases better and why/if more than one solution might be appropriate.
Can’t happen too soon IMO. 😊 Les From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:21 AM To: Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 I’d very much support applicability draft work! Cheers, Jeff On Jan 3, 2022, at 08:05, Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>> wrote: AFAIS this is a "operational and deployment" or "applicability" draft and not part of a protocol specification. But yes, such a draft would have value AFAIS, especially if it deals with both abstract node & reflection in one as available solutions. More than happy to attack that once the specs have moved to publication. -- tony On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 1:05 PM Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org<mailto:cho...@chopps.org>> wrote: Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>> writes: > One thing Les is missing here is that proxy & reflection present in > terms of deployment requirements and ultimate properties very > different engineering & operational trade-offs. Different customers > follow different philosophies here IME > > So we are not strictly standardizing here 2 solutions for the same > thing, we are standardizing two solutions that meet very different > deployment and operational requirements albeit from 20K feet view all > that stuff looks the same of course as any other thing does ... Have we captured these "different deployment and operational requirements" anywhere? I think might be very useful... Thanks, Chris. [as wg member] > -- tony > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 7:17 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= > 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > > > When I look at this request, I see it in a larger context. > > > > There are two drafts which attempt to address the same problem in > very different ways: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection/ > > > > and > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ > > > > Both of them discuss in their respective introductions the > motivation – which is to address scaling issues in deployment > scenarios where the existing IS-IS hierarchy is being asked to > “stand on its head” i.e., interconnection between different L1 > areas is not to be achieved by utilizing an L2 backbone – rather > it is the L1 areas themselves which are required to be used for > interconnection of sites (e.g., two datacenters) and the scaling > properties of the existing protocol hierarchy when used in this > way are not attractive. > > > > I find no technical basis on which to choose between the two > proposed solutions – so in my mind a last call for > “Flood-Reflection” presupposes a last call for “Area Proxy” – and > therein lies my angst. > > The end result will be that multiple incompatible solutions to > the same problem will be defined. It will then be left to > customers to try to determine which of the solutions seems best > to them – which in turn will put the onus on vendors to support > both solutions (depending on the set of customers each vendor > supports). > > This – to me – represents an utter failure of the standards > process. We are reduced to a set of constituencies which never > find common ground – the end result being sub-optimal for the > industry as a whole. > > > > It seems to me that the proper role of the WG is to address the > big questions first: > > > > 1)Is this a problem which needs to be solved by link-state > protocols? > > We certainly have folks who are clever enough to define solutions > – the two drafts are a proof of that. > > But whether this is a wise use of the IGPs I think has never been > fully discussed/answered. > > Relevant to this point is past experience with virtual links in > OSPF – use of which was problematic and which has largely fallen > out of use. > > Also, many datacenters use BGP (w or w/o IGP) and therefore have > other ways to address such issues. > > Although I am familiar with the “one protocol is simpler” > argument, whether that justifies altering the IGPs in any of the > proposed ways is still an important question to discuss. > > > > 2)If link state protocols do need to solve this problem, what is > the preferred way to do that? > > This requires meaningful dialogue and a willingness to engage on > complex technical issues. > > > > The alternative is to do what we seem to be doing – allowing > multiple solutions to move forward largely without comment. In > which case I see no basis on which to object – anyone who can > demonstrate a deployment case should then be allowed to move a > draft forward – and there are then no standardized solutions. > > (The Experimental Track status for these drafts reflects that > reality.) > > > > Les > > > > P.S. (Aside: There is a third draft offering a solution in this > space https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-ttz/ > - but as that draft continues to promote its primary usage as a > means of more easily changing area boundaries (merging/splitting) > I have not discussed it here. However, if the authors of that > draft claim it as a solution to the same problem space claimed by > Area Proxy/Flood Reflection then the WG would have no basis but > to also progress it – which would result in three solutions being > advanced.) > > > > > > > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf > Of Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 11:47 AM > To: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" > -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05 > > > > This begins the WG Last for > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05. Please post your support > or objection to this list by 12:00 AM UTC on Dec 14^th , 2021. > Also please post your comments on the draft. I’m allowing as > extra week as I like to get some additional reviews – although my > comments have been addressed. > > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr