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

[wangyali <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:23 PM
To: Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Cc: Huzhibo <[e-mail]>; Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; wangyali <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]
>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lsr mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     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
> 
>