Re: [Dcrouting] [Rift] kicking off the charter discussion

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 06 January 2018 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrouting@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D7312D574; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 13:35:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NpG5EHTVq9xd; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 13:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com (mail-lf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C8231201F2; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 13:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id m8so2421507lfc.6; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 13:35:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2NxtdpZBcGT6Xn6YYVE8gdQC13GgBaWJzEDAgsCmciw=; b=Ud/aErFP4S+z50hfFe6olc3SktwoeKc4pvoMfRlISaV45JtWfBlOaqPvO7/loLPWsJ jTrh6vZgxXa5SvA+2hPlj2kogtxuw9xhuxus3368eNHw6792rRC4Kl/rOM4C27tkmegT YPTKSgk9azaVcqZ5qcjeHIhuz5ALnyGPMjBFd8eFwHnQXxfw+5bjQ3VOqugKKDne7reT k9s2JTCvzcwfuszzw1VSJGl0OuVYwnpkJBrJ5YPZY4767nL9rITmESmD1dwTTWjpFWNh Wra0LqfQPzms5A5dTimekQmiF8Zv6XIlIqy5i+jmbgU4VFksEZfpiN0uo8jQeSG1CmfD SOxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2NxtdpZBcGT6Xn6YYVE8gdQC13GgBaWJzEDAgsCmciw=; b=JJPyUFW/kRcvfR49lGUAAvnoSkuTK1TwqhZOa2wRFYd0BOEICshVtMqq7+1nGsxt2P 9j/dbRAeZW7mfMb0usfEdTcYTBmKMBLwyrZbsI+zgogWZaCeSWnVrTk9P4aJut+/iQzz fM6+x20AFw2FeNOWoHTt4BsI42zx6pUJu2LHaF/eM3GFjPOXwTvf78YEpsZraSnppioo Js+NpzgNjtUn4iKKeAxZ6jg4xcsHLuHtnQmZpRjTtCD2NjCjyadY+GhgQo2pGYD3DIyS w31SdADXvdsn+Fhtpm3pnfBJdNbmIndAscglYr0F6TLFyVt0lrKXHZl3Iw1QBlvuThPC qOJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLvnQtdeP04SG+Y+L/6ZRT+lq1lVXkvh2iaMn/k2FtezrrdlBPg V4ndfyePC3F+d+chk4O+/3Y/SKobTFo4Z0vTTHU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovIU3xIVB4KiXKEJaj737KQwY6gTLG+66iDY64GiKOMjm1DXEfHM/9pjbD9AmAzmKx7OFxQLCbzXfokFKGGKJY=
X-Received: by 10.46.87.12 with SMTP id l12mr3794356ljb.16.1515274549202; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 13:35:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.32.136 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 13:35:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERkawAtmV51ymKSE8EuOZK9xgeu94xLDhxx1qAnvRieORg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG4d1rd6=TXVtkHBQHSGkL3KKXF6CPs9ktsr725MWjDSsC9QiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERnLiD8DMmUCJUz72Py3dk2LP=u7Zb4BxfOzs2=7t=h3mA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESszh69YiyMoQvsRrzv+LFWzkG8ij9NRrGeF-opF7RO=eww@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERkawAtmV51ymKSE8EuOZK9xgeu94xLDhxx1qAnvRieORg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 13:35:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmV8BhK5p34e6wDdSvoshcbeFagMjEAg=MvJsavEyS-pDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Petr Lapukhov <petr@fb.com>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "dcrouting@ietf.org" <dcrouting@ietf.org>, lsvr@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f8c563e153005622259d6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrouting/CvXOQsP9RbEjfPrmLduZLzAwUkg>
Subject: Re: [Dcrouting] [Rift] kicking off the charter discussion
X-BeenThere: dcrouting@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Routing in the Data Center: discussions about problems, requirements and potential solutions." <dcrouting.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrouting>, <mailto:dcrouting-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrouting/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrouting@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrouting-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrouting>, <mailto:dcrouting-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:35:54 -0000

Hi Robert,
I recall presentation by Petr Lapukhov on Open/R and Terragraph where the
principle of optimized flooding was used. Of course, algorithms and
mechanics of the Open/R in Terragraph may be different from those proposed
in the draft An Architecture for Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs. I
believe it will be very interesting and helpful to look at the proposed
dynamic flooding from the point of experience of the Open/R and Terragraph.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> Hi Alvaro,
>
> Happy New Year !!!
>
> > That was pretty much the question asked during the dcrouting BOF in
> Singapore.
>
> Well .. in Singapore and during most of list discussions dynamic flooding
> proposal was not on the table. Now it is.
>
> To me this is game changer and any conclusions reached previously IMHO
> should now be revisited.
>
> As far as outcome of the BOF - I am not sure how the conclusion was
> derived that we need new protocols - especially only those presented. In
> real practical cases a lot of DC clusters are build with at most few
> hundreds of L3 nodes which in all flavors of current link state
> implementations will work just fine as is.
>
> For MSDCs use of either eBGP or Open/R is deployed.
>
> Now dynamic flooding can extend link state to scale much larger.
>
> Personally IMHO this case is solved. Maybe time to move on to other areas
> ? :)
>
> Best,
> R.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 12:02 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On January 5, 2018 at 5:48:23 AM, Robert Raszuk (robert@raszuk.net)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Robert:
>>
>> Hi!  Happy New Year!
>>
>> Do we really need yet one more new routing protocol vs relatively minor
>> extension of existing link state protocols ?
>>
>>
>> That was pretty much the question asked during the dcrouting BOF in
>> Singapore.  Starting from the assumption that one size doesn’t fit all, the
>> room showed interest in working on solutions beyond the current work in
>> isis/ospf (which was also quickly reviewed there).
>>
>> To be clear, the intent of chartering rift doesn’t mean that work in
>> other WGs (including new proposals) should stop.  Quite the contrary, if
>> there is sustained interest in this effort, then we will go on with it — if
>> there isn’t (for whatever reason), then it will be clear as well.  Note
>> that I asked the proponents to constrain the proposed charter to work items
>> that should be able to be delivered within a short timeframe (around a
>> year) — so that we can reassess the interest, and re-charter if appropriate.
>>
>> The above obviously applies to the lsvr (aka BGP-SPF) proposal, so I’m
>> cc’ing that list here to avoid repeating the discussion there.  Also, I
>> noticed you forwarded your message to dcrouting, so I’m cc’ing that list as
>> well.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dcrouting mailing list
> Dcrouting@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrouting
>
>