IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

tony.li@tony.li Fri, 16 August 2019 16:03 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 A91C51200B6 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 dT6TWoyB98Os for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x632.google.com (mail-pl1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (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 989FC12006D for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x632.google.com with SMTP id t14so2606442plr.11 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:03:52 -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=X1MwvkcCRnYu3iekczfmMqtOMFSWu6cc61CUP5REmiw=; b=lF0/d7VaAXC+qnd34aYMU8IIQqENBT7YoZLiUFCCQuRt7UZrPSVU3G9gVhnkLEYcVp SzIqRLKgTKWujLzhv3XgMaAeq0nuTcSX6Bzi/F5vcKZhvfA/am3lgmlLcRl1afq5FtU+ Kk2op/qm3GbS81F3DBs3XAmFZjf4+RYzgE7usPXZgpqW1JTBIVedIeEDwZmT266/wr32 zk8CPi7z2x7jdzhZemkmvcFhMLlUTwKU377jtIpXHBag4R/T1yvRCD4BljW2hIky/R3i +TtW7FQVNppYpcio28gIc1l6BFdCjTmFUOME8rASFE4R/ML/U8b0KOfH1O+BSvuPzA2o 7tKQ==
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=X1MwvkcCRnYu3iekczfmMqtOMFSWu6cc61CUP5REmiw=; b=n6QRbjpIDOMvGC90oQUXf6VKdiIVUyRfKDUfQJj7MjqI5MgGN1yPeY7PJRFBvgHq60 f3MswEj4lruevQumrXZW4VrNQhlYIseb/oJQwlOPEplpMX4DrT1DfJFTq+5uczm38M9a NTyj2xVbMxbEkr5boolBlehGeFz2TLcgK8cWlcyEHXtBsuVZqcMQcAjXLnS03gqr65Vq QM8cU5Tn1Oq4xgU4ARFZV2CieuVkrvrI5qVlMdq9bj+f1XY1JEoxGKW+FdAGtYzZALP8 2pEdb08JT/psDaefVWuPmd+cSFgSyRhAW2CSk4mzEqsqfPUYXSn/uKJbXklnuAmOunAK Zrig==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVupV8lMb4WTH3Pg+gYaS9T32k3YoPe4/nLZQsCrmCHCobKwCdj QrptUMqM4i9GamTnxMwqzlU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzz7E/qa/5DvDUp3Uw88Gmhhf/DTujRl82ZP4OTgXaTjITBWTLsmM5yTsQZLpSJunBehACnXA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:3081:: with SMTP id v1mr10228145plb.169.1565971432140; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.22.228.115] ([162.210.130.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o35sm5198698pgm.29.2019.08.16.09.03.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
From: tony.li@tony.li
Message-Id: <DF25D566-1EC3-483A-BCE9-5C6EDDF74617@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B61023B1-3AC8-4CE6-89A7-37CFE46DCED9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:03:50 -0700
In-Reply-To: <00b601d553fe$9636a5a0$c2a3f0e0$@org.cn>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, lsr@ietf.org
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <8BAFFDB4-62B0-4018-966E-6861D89D0BD1@cisco.com> <01a501d55338$945c2b40$bd1481c0$@org.cn> <C90AD13E-1512-4373-9CF7-32BAD6D65EC6@tony.li> <CAOj+MMFNkVbgbN1v7Q_4PBfLVN=Me_whcR36Um-Eu_AgSDF4Xg@mail.gmail.com> <24D935ED-28C3-4A84-B42C-E429EC2D6FE8@tony.li> <00b601d553fe$9636a5a0$c2a3f0e0$@org.cn>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/CzGElozt26l5nOpWvcmaUJbZ8Do>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-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: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:03:53 -0000

Hi Aijun,

> If, as you stated,  we connect R1 and R7 via one link(although we will not do so, if we design the network hierarchically), how you flood the link information hierarchically but let the traffic between the two connected L1 area bypass the L2 area?


The link between R1 and R7 needs to belong to either the top area or the bottom area.  R1 or R7 needs to participate in two areas and leak routes between the two areas.

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email