Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt

[wangyali <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,

Please review follows tagged by [Yali].


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:37 PM
To: wangyali <[e-mail]>; Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Cc: Huzhibo <[e-mail]>; Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt

Yali,

On 03/03/2021 06:02, wangyali wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. Yes. I am improving this sentence. Please review the following update.
> 
> OLD: " And Level 1/Level 2 PSNP and Level 1/Level 2 CSNP containing information about LSPs that transmitted in a specific MFI are generated to synchronize the LSDB corresponding to the specific MFI."
> 
> NEW: "And Level 1/Level 2 PSNP and Level 1/Level 2 CSNP containing information about LSPs that transmitted in a specific MFI are generated to synchronize the MFI-specific sub-LSDB. Each MFI-specific sub-LSDB is subdivided from a single LSDB."

please specify sub-LSDB.
[Yali] Thanks for your comment. But to avoid introducing a new term, I change to use "MFI-specific LSDB" instead of " MFI-specific sub-LSDB ".  And we give the explanation that "Each MFI-specific LSDB is subdivided from a single LSDB."

thanks,
Peter


> 
> Best,
> Yali
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:12 PM
> To: wangyali <[e-mail]>; Gyan Mishra 
> <[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Huzhibo <[e-mail]>; Aijun Wang 
> <[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>; lsr 
> <[e-mail]>; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for 
> draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
> 
> Yali,
> 
> On 01/03/2021 10:49, wangyali wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Many thanks for your feedback. First of all, I'm sorry for the confusion I had caused you from my previous misunderstanding.
>>
>> And I want to clarify that a single and common LSDB is shared by all MFIs.
> 
> well, the draft says:
> 
> "information about LSPs that transmitted in a
>    specific MFI are generated to synchronize the LSDB corresponding to
>    the specific MFI."
> 
> If the above has changed, then please update the draft accordingly.
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Best,
>> Yali
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:23 PM
>> To: Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Huzhibo <[e-mail]>; Aijun Wang 
>> <[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>; lsr 
>> <[e-mail]>; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; wangyali 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for 
>> draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
>>
>> Gyan,
>>
>> On 26/02/2021 17:19, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>>>
>>> MFI seems more like flex algo with multiple sub topologies sharing a 
>>> common links in a  topology where RFC 8202 MI is separated at the 
>>> process level separate LSDB.  So completely different and of course 
>>> different goals and use cases for MI versus MFI.
>>
>> I would not use the fle-algo analogy - all flex-algos operate on top of a single LSDB, contrary to what is being proposed in MFI draft.
>>
>>>
>>>     MFI also seems to be a flood reduction mechanism by creating 
>>> multiple sub topology instances within a common LSDB.  There are a 
>>> number of flood reduction drafts and this seems to be another method 
>>> of achieving the same.
>>
>> MFI draft proposes to keep the separate LSDB per MFI, so the above analogy is not correct either.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Gyan
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:10 AM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       Aijun,
>>>
>>>       How multi instance is implemented is at the discretion of a vendor.
>>>       It can be one process N threads or N processes. It can be both and
>>>       operator may choose.
>>>
>>>       MFI is just one process - by the spec - so it is inferior.
>>>
>>>       Cheers,
>>>       R.
>>>
>>>
>>>       On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:44 PM Aijun Wang <[e-mail]
>>>       <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>           Hi, Robert:
>>>
>>>           Separate into different protocol instances can accomplish the
>>>           similar task, but it has some deployment overhead.
>>>           MFIs within one instance can avoid such cumbersome work, and
>>>           doesn’t affect the basic routing calculation process.
>>>
>>>           Aijun Wang
>>>           China Telecom
>>>
>>>>           On Feb 26, 2021, at 19:00, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]
>>>>           <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>           Hi Yali,
>>>>
>>>>               If this was precise, then the existing multi-instance
>>>>               mechanism would be sufficient.
>>>>               [Yali]: MFI is a different solution we recommend to solve
>>>>               this same and valuable issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>           Well the way I understand this proposal MFI is much weaker
>>>>           solution in terms of required separation.
>>>>
>>>>           In contrast RFC8202 allows to separate ISIS instances at the
>>>>           process level, but here MFIs as defined must be handled by the
>>>>           same ISIS process
>>>>
>>>>               This document defines an extension to
>>>>               IS-IS to allow*one standard instance*  of
>>>>               the protocol to support multiple update
>>>>               process operations.
>>>>
>>>>           Thx,
>>>>           R.
>>>>
>>>>           _______________________________________________
>>>>           Lsr mailing list
>>>>           [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>           https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>
>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>       Lsr mailing list
>>>       [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>
>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>
>>> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>>>
>>> /M 301 502-1347
>>> 13101 Columbia Pike
>>> /Silver Spring, MD
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>