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

Tony Li <> Thu, 25 February 2021 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D9F3A1C3F for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:45:52 -0800 (PST)
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=0.25, 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 Yhq3KIuj7UKP for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:45:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE6B23A1C3D for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id ba1so3515934plb.1 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:45:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RD2lnuGuiaeDGSzxM1Ea8r7sanuj1gFKUxePYw19Wt0=; b=MBTUlPWRL4hBAZPC4kycwzr6plxa00I7UslK9Z7jdZGOVmxUDXn2DqeTCd2GqXXP9y 9qL/fDOpTX7MHTM/SMHeWZQo/30uHaxUbtOQ4yuiFjIDsrta6pc+EjaV9XAJ3gCLnaIM K1m1ImC9zznn0S8ZkB2+7zqhj04MrQU5JjVO+2l9TTZSF2G4nwDSpAQv6lS0xrLdlmit xR5ig3rGsyPIsFbuTfl2xMMm/yvPAEv5WuA5Ox4IRZ6hGsjbaO3MuNSgDd4TgcuTWtAk GNe65sB+nMbdJL0kqe7DxXm3ueGKsHuwH1h4iueSycpd1plnGQ7XaaB/kf8mgF9cWJFd PstA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RD2lnuGuiaeDGSzxM1Ea8r7sanuj1gFKUxePYw19Wt0=; b=f3xVDuMpjkcG1uxt5La0flflyx4s5rZ7KP003r2pTCK0vbttdKVQnkbpt8AJI3rPDl VTNgSvKuuJwSpmEanrqORBFOxmUsPNbaNIIuY+DctbNvK2ZsVGLyNt0dOdLkYdMjge0j zJh8kJG3aAKqXrg+X/YyzZ/HqaPtOwFHXHBX6Fg3PmjMEfjmGBmLqxqcNZWZnlyg0mus s/sg1SHErz40PVe5MVzs5HAI5wko0AWBmqsdsWm4sAsPCY+VuleCdyQWoVpi+rSjPXnn 7LhCE9Lqs2p3kl8lA//wllwzT9lUg5CfBb8NXwyiSVyi0ZfNOKRMeYyFulLvofEmAmiS Hq0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qGvncK3141hxchXVIuyPAniF892/PM1FcybACqC0z1tzqe8d7 XTdbrzndMW51ySNn4RNb31Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJPu/i0vd+43lAMD14nTkWm3cvdeZOVC/R/2AeLOWZWpFSXNP+1APko+xIHVttwIvzLUmQpQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1bc6:: with SMTP id oa6mr4244728pjb.86.1614271549303; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id z2sm6889681pfc.8.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Tony Li <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
From: Tony Li <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 08:45:47 -0800
Cc: "" <>, Huzhibo <>, Tianran Zhou <>, Aijun Wang <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: wangyali <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:45:53 -0000

Hi Yali,

Thank you for your reply. More comments...

> Given this, what is it that you’re trying to accomplish?  You’ve called this a ‘multi-flooding instance’, but it’s very unclear about what that means.  You say that multiple MFIs exist within a single IS-IS instance.
>>> Yali: The ‘multi-flooding instance' means that multiple Update process are allowed operating within the zero IS-IS instance. Each Update process is associated with a topology and a LSDB. Flooding parameters of each Update process can be different and customized based on different information needed to be advertised in the associated Flooding Instance. 
> Although each Flooding Instance has its own separate Update process, flooding topology and LSDB, these multiple flooding instances share a common adjacencies.

Again, I think that any comment about implementation internals is irrelevant, and thus the existence of a process is irrelevant.  If I’m understanding you, each MFI has an independent topology and LSDB. This is true with the current multi-instance document. Where you seem to differ is in having common adjacencies. To me, this implies that the topologies may overlap.  Is this correct?

Have you considered using link level partitioning (e.g., VLANs) and just using multi-instance?

> What problem are you solving?
>>> Yali: The problem we are trying to solve is how to isolate application information flooding from the routing information flooding through multiple flooding instance.

If this was precise, then the existing multi-instance mechanism would be sufficient.