Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

[Dean cheng <[e-mail]>]

This two-approach approach makes sense, since it tends to provide a solution
in a short term but also lay out a foundation for the relatively-long term. And
hopefully some elements deployed in the short term can be leveraged and
further tuned for the long term solution.

Dean

From: Lsr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Naiming Shen (naiming)
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 12:19 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Tony Li <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]<mailto:acee=[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward


I do think to solve all the data centers (massive or small) requirement,
this discussion is very useful. If we can list all the requirements and see
what technical approaches we can do to achieve them.

But incremental improvements on existing protocols is useful also. They may not
solve the complete set of “requirements”, but they do help data center
and also non-data center deployments to improve their operations.

I would think this group can proceed with both approaches.

Regards,
- Naiming

On Aug 22, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>> wrote:

In the discussions which led to the creation of LSVR and RIFT WGs, considerable interest was expressed in working on enhancements to existing Link State protocols. You can peruse the dcrouting mailing list archives.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrouting/

It is rather befuddling to me that the IETF seems to have decided to move forward on two new protocols (no objection from me) but seems to feel there is insufficient reason to move forward on proposals to extend existing IGPs.
I think the suggestion that we need to write (yet another)  requirements document before doing so is a recipe for delay – not for progress.

Multiple drafts have been presented over the course of the past two years and discussed on the list as well.
In the case of two of the drafts:

draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext
draft-li-dynamic-flooding

WG adoption was requested in Montreal.

Please explain why we cannot proceed with “business as usual” as regards these drafts.


   Les


From: Lsr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:43 AM
To: Tony Li <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]<mailto:acee=[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

+1 Tony

We could start with a document, similar to dc-routing requirements one we did in RTGWG before chartering RIFT and LSVR.
Would help to disambiguate requirements from claims and have apple to apple comparison.
Doing it on github was a good experience.

Regards,
Jeff

On Aug 22, 2018, at 09:27, Tony Li <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:




At IETF 102, there was no dearth of flooding reduction proposals.  In fact, we have so many proposals that there wasn’t agree as how to move forward and we agreed to discuss on the list. This Email is to initiate that discussion (which I intend to participate in but as a WG member).


Hi Acee,

Perhaps a useful starting point of the discussion is to talk about requirements.  There seem to many different perceptions.

Regards,
Tony


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr