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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Sun, 28 February 2021 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 23A833A1512 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 04:23:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 uML4QVPnypUf for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 04:23:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9CC53A1510 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 04:23:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3243; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1614515011; x=1615724611; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZJ5j4gQEYDJR+nlyJQUsEk9kKzSapSuyJ53ft4/UKyU=; b=SJVYo7Dq2YwvcTEI0udl4nBN6Dnld+Z2BydKx0TDcDJ4BtxpvmjPSvhy lDoNv3nsgoTxW04h8RSPfHmwLlZZNnQEj5Fgvl/kOfH/RZa6HiVsgj9WZ HUcq2V3YpIcC9525unCcHLCofvf9lVM6N7I2i/w4kBrXc9VxP8adqcjVq M=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C1AAAxijtgjBbLJq1fAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QESAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBQIFPgyFWAScSMYRBiQSIKQglA48bjTALAQEBDx0LD?= =?us-ascii?q?AQBAYRNAoF7JjgTAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAYY6DYZEAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBASEPAQU2CQIQCwcHCgICIwMCAicfEQYBDAYCAQEXglUBgmYhD686doEyh?= =?us-ascii?q?VmDR4FEgQ4qAYlPg3NCgUlCgRABJwyCZz6CXAEBggEmgk+CXwSDKgRSASA7I?= =?us-ascii?q?ApHHRphEJADBB44gjmTdJI0gwaDL5V8gmkFBwMfgzeQHpABlFWCCZtDD4Rrg?= =?us-ascii?q?WshgVkzGggbFTuCaQlHGQ2ISYVvg1aFFIVGQAMvOAIGAQkBAQMJjBMBAQ?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,213,1610409600"; d="scan'208";a="33798288"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 28 Feb 2021 12:23:27 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 11SCNQ6B003446; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 12:23:26 GMT
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
References: <CAOj+MMHsDgfD8avbRtvthhd0=c-X25L9HBc0yQTby4vFQKECLQ@mail.gmail.com> <7D53A65F-7375-43BC-9C4E-2EDCF8E138C8@chinatelecom.cn> <CAOj+MMEAJdqvmhfpVEc+M+v_GJ92hmjggbDWr3=gSAM4y3HkYg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1EBsej6b-++Ne2OpwMb6DMb9dubjf=M1LrOEHjn4MWmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <57f50a96-4476-2dc7-ad11-93d5e418f774@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:23:26 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1EBsej6b-++Ne2OpwMb6DMb9dubjf=M1LrOEHjn4MWmA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/9Y6-zRqT3xvjdTrDy8denEpj43g>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
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, 28 Feb 2021 12:23:36 -0000

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 <robert@raszuk.net 
> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> 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 <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
>     <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>> 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 <robert@raszuk.net
>>         <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>> 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
>>         Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lsr mailing list
>     Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>     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
> 
>