Tony – We don’t agree – but that isn’t news. Let me try to start a meaningful discussion.
Using the protocol to send what is best described as some subset of a PICS means that we propose to use the IGP flooding mechanism to send static information which the protocol itself cannot (and should not) use in its operation. This consumes space, bandwidth, gets periodically refreshed unnecessarily, and now a complete copy of the information from every node resides on every router in the network when it is only needed by an “NMS”. It would be hard to come up with a better example of “IGP isn’t a dump truck” than this. If there is a belief that we can severely limit the amount of information that is sent/node, I’d have to say that I am skeptical. Once we allow this into the protocol, I don’t see any basis on which to separate what is allowed and what is disallowed. It would not be unreasonable for an operator to say that everything that is a candidate to be mentioned in a PICS is a legitimate candidate for being advertised using this mechanism. Which means the amount of information is likely to become very large – especially once it becomes the de facto way of providing protocol management information. The justification seems to be that we don’t have anything better – which represents a longstanding failure of the management plane. While I agree with you that management plane solutions are not adequate – not least because we can’t get the industry to converge on a single solution – this does not mean we should invest in the wrong solution. We would be better served spending time and effort working on the right solution - as difficult as that may be. If we despair of getting a management plane solution, my suggestion would be to use RFC 6823/6822 to define an IS-IS protocol management application that could support the advertisement of such information. This is technically straightforward to define/implement, easily extensible, and it separates the management information from the information used by the protocol. And because a separate topology can be used for the “management instance”, it would be possible to reduce the number of copies in the network. Thoughts?? Les From: Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 9:16 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Henk Smit <henk.i...@xs4all.nl>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-pkaneria-lsr-multi-tlv-01.txt Hi Les, Folks may well complain that management tools are not as good as they need to be, but trying to compensate for this by adding management information into the protocol itself isn’t a good solution. It is not a good solution. But it is the only practical solution available. At scale, we need automation. We have tried and failed (again) to get broad adoption of a management infrastructure. We continue to reject alternative approaches. The thought of someone keeping all of this in their heads is simply naive. We have already painted ourselves into this corner. There is no good way out. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
