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

wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> Mon, 01 March 2021 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wangyali11@huawei.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 6D0103A18F9 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 01:50:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 DpqqXNWXqfLU for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 01:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED73B3A18F8 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 01:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DpwK24Mmgz67tqW; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 17:42:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.37) by fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 10:49:49 +0100
Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.39) by fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 10:49:49 +0100
Received: from DGGEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.65]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0509.000; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 17:49:40 +0800
From: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, 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>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXCjBTvOSvDlAmT0KIo+Iqe5eLAapoLAHQgABk14CAAYtOcP//pmeAgAAMXwCAAAciAIAARbMAgALiyACAAevFYA==
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 09:49:40 +0000
Message-ID: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405242279@dggeml524-mbx.china.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> <57f50a96-4476-2dc7-ad11-93d5e418f774@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <57f50a96-4476-2dc7-ad11-93d5e418f774@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.136]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/HZuKIBqaN7yTlg_dwzDlklhZNUE>
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: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 09:50:00 -0000

Hi Peter,

Many thanks for your feedback. First of all, I'm sorry for the confusion I had caused you from my previous misunderstanding.

And I want to clarify that a single and common LSDB is shared by all MFIs.

Best,
Yali

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:23 PM
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>om>; Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>cn>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>li>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>om>; wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt

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
> 
>