Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01

tony.li@tony.li Sun, 21 June 2020 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE043A0DDC; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 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=0.25, 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: 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 7_HHhfQ3GHsG; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (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 EC2B83A0DD9; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id d12so451593ply.1; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=9ODuj17nChLpA+J28AT3AlgE3Y2fQrkFzbMGmuvGdvk=; b=j+hZhLcRbPaO/aMKmMAvI6iXSxgjUQz03GMFSnk+oVE44psT1mDpaR8eoC73f+9b5x uLtEZ56YbPzs0WXZzXpwbACopAQyjfqS0WV96P5qOyq0y8RaL9GHJ+30Tg3Pp4eZY7Hg TrryksNdT5MpxGs/T1IuAftrM+BZlOnEix5gzjUFLUhHRnm21Oko1EOgT2II0ANFPCUu jnP3SfWSEQWvOGDM9e/ko3Q8JhPTJPUM/x3UtfHpQwLEtCMX+2170tEQ1IrmewpE+TeM z0sH3C9MMikf1d/Dd92XipDSyi9B1ttRExxm7GF/7du6CPb05m5m2SrQJuQVQJZ7R3QK B3rQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=9ODuj17nChLpA+J28AT3AlgE3Y2fQrkFzbMGmuvGdvk=; b=YNObaFz9L/Z9jx0oGuFpRI6A7ba0K/Ylc6JOcoQCMaLkRSziIZ/jYeqNziuuyhXHlr 7HB/mLdqnwlLy8+YGFu+jZ2BRDvAxr2+/f2f4d6R2QGT2p4Dl+KrztAqgFpyptcdZ21v jt378i47n9tSN8uxeVvRmePr4CNs+uREiUhCUNw6vtBc2z1RN7FXWVk+whd5flANq+Tq CQejmwqxdb0waFnGVI5b/uDLdpzn1vMyH2iiBLOMXSBnbdMQLIx8pIv2WWyEx7Z0uQKk KgGkKXw+TM1ZV7HtVidx4mS9jBWq3BfVn2xDElizly8oF2e+9jK+xV3HEX6eO8X2Aqks u/Bw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yAxmyT2fpp7Egsq+vWydz7Ze44NjbWvo++KQN3uB0j/yKvmEo 59BzSMlXswwyr1oltS/xVYPnGF7V
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+OcFWH9V1yviRkho41hbSBuIQmNaxx5GbzJNGUfHYD9W/ew0knK0oCVeZGfDjyZWXTUoZSA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8a96:: with SMTP id p22mr7319089plo.281.1592757766402; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.95.85.230] ([162.210.129.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o207sm11682835pfd.56.2020.06.21.09.42.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
From: tony.li@tony.li
Message-Id: <82330BD4-4B50-4AEE-8FE0-EC143B9AB496@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_59F8BD96-3795-4E35-8E17-07E3B824B1A6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:42:43 -0700
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4337E1B9B9DA281D67FF4C13C1960@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "lsr-ads@ietf.org" <lsr-ads@ietf.org>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <7C4D06CC-4881-4292-A870-A3418229C095@chopps.org> <BY5PR11MB4337E1B9B9DA281D67FF4C13C1960@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/11sI9y57fepCgo8tnmO2d3tQ5jk>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 16:42:48 -0000

Hi Les,


> I am not yet overly enthused about approaches which promote non-hierarchical network architectures. But it seems clear that there is interest in deploying non-hierarchical solutions and both drafts present solutions
> which merit further evaluation.


I think that there’s some confusion here. The point is very much to have a hierarchical design.  The key point is that the IGP hierarchy must not require a hierarchical data plane.  While a hierarchical data plane may suffice in a WAN topology, imposing that restriction on mega-scale multi-dimensional Clos fabrics simply doesn’t fly.  

We want the hierarchy provided by the IGP.  We need tools for extreme scaling. We need the IGP abstractions decoupled from the data plane architecture.

Looked at sideways, we’re simply trying to generalize the IS-IS area mechanism. We need transit areas that do not impact the scale of L2.

Apologies if I’m simply restating what Tony P. has already said.

Regards,
Tony