I agree with all aforementioned comments. Wrt AI/ML networking - if a controller is used, what is required is link state exposure northbound and not link state protocol in the fabric. (I could argue for RIFT though ;-)) I’d urge you to take a look at Meta’s deployment in their ML clusters (publicly available) - they use BGP as the routing protocol to exchange reachability (and build ECMP sets) and provide a backup if controller computed next hop goes away/before new one has been computed. Open R is used northbound to expose the topology (in exactly same way - BGP-LS could be used).
To summarize: an LS protocol brings no additional value in scaled-out leaf-spine fabrics, without significant modifications - it doesn’t work in irregular topologies such as DF, etc. Existing proposals - there are shipping implementations and experience in operating it, have proven their relative value in suitable deployments. Cheers, Jeff > On Nov 26, 2023, at 12:20, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Speaking as WG member: > > I agree. The whole Data Center IGP flooding discussion went on years ago and > the simplistic enhancement proposed in the subject draft is neither relevant > or useful now. > > Thanks, > Acee > >> On Nov 24, 2023, at 11:55 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Xiaohu – >> I also point out that there are at least two existing drafts which >> specifically address IS-IS flooding reduction in CLOS networks and do so in >> greater detail and with more robustness than what is in your draft: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood/ >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-spine-leaf-ext/ >> I do not see a need for yet another draft specifically aimed at CLOS >> networks. >> Note that work on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-spine-leaf-ext was suspended due to >> lack of interest in deploying an IGP solution in CLOS networks. >> You are suggesting in draft-xu-lsr-fare that AI is going to change this. >> Well, maybe, but if so I think we should return to the solutions already >> available and prioritize work on them. >> Les >> From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tony Li >> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2023 8:39 AM >> To: xuxiaohu_i...@hotmail.com >> Cc: lsr@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for >> draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos-01.txt >> Hi, >> What you’re proposing is already described in IS-IS Mesh Groups >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2973.html) and improved upon in Dynamic >> Flooding >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding). >> Regards, >> Tony >> >> >> On Nov 23, 2023, at 8:29 AM, xuxiaohu_i...@hotmail.com wrote: >> Hi all, >> Any comments or suggestions are welcome. >> Best regards, >> Xiaohu >> 发件人: internet-dra...@ietf.org <internet-dra...@ietf.org> >> 日期: 星期三, 2023年11月22日 11:37 >> 收件人: Xiaohu Xu <xuxiaohu_i...@hotmail.com> >> 主题: New Version Notification for >> draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos-01.txt >> A new version of Internet-Draft >> draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos-01.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos >> Revision: 01 >> Title: Flooding Reduction in CLOS Networks >> Date: 2023-11-22 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 6 >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos-01.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos/ >> HTMLized: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos >> Diff: >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-xu-lsr-flooding-reduction-in-clos-01 >> >> Abstract: >> >> In a CLOS topology, an OSPF (or ISIS) router may receive identical >> copies of an LSA (or LSP) from multiple OSPF (or ISIS) neighbors. >> Moreover, two OSPF (or ISIS) neighbors may exchange the same LSA (or >> LSP) simultaneously. This results in unnecessary flooding of link- >> state information, which wastes the precious resources of OSPF (or >> ISIS) routers. Therefore, this document proposes extensions to OSPF >> (or ISIS) to reduce this flooding within CLOS networks. The >> reduction of OSPF (or ISIS) flooding is highly beneficial for >> improving the scalability of CLOS networks. >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
