Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call Wed, 20 May 2020 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2193A0A82 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3pWWRd_L3kDM for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3E113A0A7D for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ci21so1478264pjb.3 for <>; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=G6xI4vXJ1lXWv0b0xP95Z7eIx2KhKGdvWQujonTmRg8=; b=PUlKZGtRE3BVJyym87RHdPJPD0zc8pFWVQCjUx5vvSMIyF5cJ6UgJ2VZyJ3h+0HV17 ZTfIxBtyDHxNHnze+vjDuKX+KShDI04TYKAJd15rXArN5q1L2cXCLLS5bStXwYp8jw83 lQ20o+cWM7Kn/TTcqQrJlPaBCqYcwdNSGn2KyN752nS27hatJCnONMFRhnifv8xahvaR YQczqoi+cmnP/soVQWJB5UW7AyBcrsFVKzVcZL9PwnxnUKJDKcBzk7TpH07KeI7MqlJY gjYGyVvXzWCUA2ESVHLkepxg9gByFjnI1dCg2KjfJwoHqTft6NLVUgU9WLeY9V+w/PCN OcnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=G6xI4vXJ1lXWv0b0xP95Z7eIx2KhKGdvWQujonTmRg8=; b=DA/CvDIXGufKPrZLyibKM/zctsgzKOJThjmQgh7R7DmEl7tMQfYtHl+7phgcG7LYcC /gOErqZth7IfOI5zRWpX227nCqZN86t32f3kQnfy9GOxtUbg1ye/0b+q8U0i21EDYEvL HkHMGvui0alUXU5AJvg6i4GO04MPor3DR0lNO+iML0qeC0ti39eR7ghIEwYoCiZ+BMGU 5Jn1ep/mY+Mvoh4geBTXeK/mLbGar0ynC2wayAzMx8BKkrhwxBtl/7h1Eq7Hy9jpvkjz mvhrE0ifrS92aEont9fheo+wiOYVWmCv6PMsNpcb4gCqeONihtv0stvQxxo3hBsFalYg A9sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ip3pAXPCVcLBju5A7iH/1F2z39W6Fite6ExcRuYHcaZ8QLJdN SjSifmoz7GoHzQia8RTy8aI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFrX8HTFQnWJyVDgScUwKCr2UAiGJTevSjHaqbO+HyKVXFD4u37bPU/LZFUPcispY8BoKXmw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8989:: with SMTP id v9mr6375475pjn.180.1589989713907; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 136sm2450309pfa.152.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 May 2020 08:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F89A3C54-A41C-4D94-BC51-AF5068239D60"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 08:48:27 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Huaimo Chen <>, "" <>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Gyan Mishra <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm - draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:48:40 -0000

Hi Gyan,

> This is a much needed feature that operators have been needing for densely meshed topologies that commonly exist in data centers to accommodate very high bandwidth E-W traffic.

Thank you.

> Please look at the feature description and it does seem to be exactly the same as this draft.  Please confirm. 

It would appear to be a different, proprietary, and unpublished algorithm.  

This will give us three different implementations, using three different algorithms, none of which will inter-operate.  Whee!!! :-(

> There maybe other vendors due to industry demand have to get the feature deployed before it reaches standards vendor consensus with the IETF.

Our implementation shipped last year.

> We are testing this feature and planning to deploy but wanted to ensure that this is the same as the draft on the standards track.

It does not appear to be, but someone from Cisco should confirm.