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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Robert:

As I said: if there’s no interest in a specific proposal it will then be
clear from the list discussion and we’ll do the right thing.

I really don’t want to make this a beauty contest — there are multiple
feasible solutions, some may be better than others.  We can probably all
argue in favor of our favorite solution/protocol/idea, but that won’t move
any of them forward.  IOW, please focus on advancing what you think is
worth advancing…

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On January 5, 2018 at 7:13:34 AM, Robert Raszuk ([e-mail]) 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 <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On January 5, 2018 at 5:48:23 AM, Robert Raszuk ([e-mail]) 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.
>