Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Fri, 10 December 2021 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 0D1FD3A09FA for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 21:28:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 izGZi_lH4vPY for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 21:28:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 910533A09F7 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 21:28:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [221.223.96.4]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id B19021C028A; Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:28:12 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-E6281908-691A-42A2-96E3-2F6BB84221A9"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:28:12 +0800
Message-Id: <EF683259-2538-4DCC-AE76-F9E201C95BE0@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <22CB4913-E475-4F28-BB32-0452F6D3A606@tony.li>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, lsr@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <22CB4913-E475-4F28-BB32-0452F6D3A606@tony.li>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19B74)
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZCBgUCR5ZQVlLVUtZV1 kWDxoPAgseWUFZKDYvK1lXWShZQUpMS0tKN1dZLVlBSVdZDwkaFQgSH1lBWUIYThpWHkMeTE4ZHU MeHU1JVRMBExYaEhckFA4PWVdZFhoPEhUdFFlBWVVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6Nxw6Syo5Pj5OGEI1ThEQOE8s SjEKCSlVSlVKTUhCSkpPS0JIS0pLVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSUpVSUlIVUJNVU9ZV1kIAVlBTUhITTcG
X-HM-Tid: 0a7da2d030b9d993kuwsb19021c028a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Aq2Qtu3KXYWZ9lu2p0n7Ck3vOvI>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call fo "IS-IS Flood Reflection" -draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05
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: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 05:28:24 -0000

Hi, Tony:

I am referring to the “flood reflection” solution.
I think “area proxy” is one better solution if we want actually the L1 zone to be the transited by L2 zone.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Dec 10, 2021, at 13:13, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Aijun,
> 
>> No, I think the WG participations would like to enjoy the interested and correct direction topics. 
>> One technical considerations is the following: if IGP evolved into this direction, then the following connections loop diagram is also possible:
>> L2-L1-L2-L1-L2-L1-…..-L2(back to the origin)
>> Then, will we introduce the “AS number” to avoid loop, and various “Path Attributes” to influence the path selection within the IGP?
> 
> 
> I think you misunderstand how Area Proxy works.
> 
> In fact, the L1 area actually is running L1L2, so there is no need for additional loop detection mechanisms.  Within the L2 LSDB, the area’s topology
> is simply abstracted away and only the interconnections with L2 systems are visible. The area effectively looks like a single node.
> 
> Tony
>