IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Tue, 09 August 2022 12:26 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 12120C14CF08; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 05:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXcxfuihzdAk; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 05:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m121145.qiye.163.com (mail-m121145.qiye.163.com [115.236.121.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FF48C14CF00; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 05:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [106.121.187.58]) by mail-m121145.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id B770C800091; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 20:26:27 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 20:26:26 +0800
Message-Id: <5138395B-A1AD-4EA2-BAE1-F5CD448C11D0@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <F0BF7FCB-5CFE-40DF-B374-6EEA3D172F8E@cisco.com>
Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, lsr@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr-ads@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F0BF7FCB-5CFE-40DF-B374-6EEA3D172F8E@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19G71)
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZFg8aDwILHllBWSg2Ly tZV1koWUFKTEtLSjdXWS1ZQUlXWQ8JGhUIEh9ZQVlCGR9NVkgfGk4fQk5MTB1NQ1UTARMWGhIXJB QOD1lXWRgSC1lBWUpLTVVKSUpVSkNMVU5DWVdZFhoPEhUdFFlBWU9LSFVKSktITUpVS1kG
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6Mjo6NCo*TT06Qi1LKA0BHhEh AUoKFDJVSlVKTU1LS09MQkNDSUpMVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlKS01VSklKVUpDTFVOQ1lXWQgBWUFIQkxINwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a8282921430b03akuuub770c800091
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/KkmgpNDpROjZJuSKquM5FHbk4YE>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 12:26:36 -0000

Hi, Acee, Peter:

If there is no significant updates for these two RFCs, I recommend we delay the obsolete of them, also the adoption call for these two bis drafts.
What we should do is to find other more scalable, extensible and systematic approaches for the application specified advertisements.

For example, for the multiple application scenarios, is it enough just define the application specified attributes? 

From my understandings, different applications may build different LSDBs, run different SPF algorithm, update at different frequencies, forming different forwarding tables etc. It is necessary to divide/group all the above items based on application, not just the attributes.


Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Aug 9, 2022, at 18:31, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Aijun, 
> 
> And the BIS changes are more clarifications than changes to the existing RFC 8919 and RFC 8920 RFCs. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee 
> 
> On 8/9/22, 5:57 AM, "Peter Psenak" <ppsenak@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>    Aijun,
> 
>>    On 09/08/2022 05:35, Aijun Wang wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I am wondering why we are so hurry to obsolete RFC8919, given that only the
>> minor parts are  updated (mainly the zero length SABM/UABM, and other
>> interoperability issues).
>> There may be other methods to advertise the application specific attributes.
>>> From my POV, the rules, implementation of ASLA are still complex, the
>> deployment of them are challenging.
>> 
>> Is there any real deployment for RFC8919 until now?
> 
>    sure there are deployments of it. Flex-algo is built around RFC8919, so 
>    any network where flex-algo is used with ISIS is using RFC8919.
> 
>    Peter
> 
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>> Aijun Wang
>> China Telecom
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian
>> Hopps
>> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 6:17 PM
>> To: lsr@ietf.org
>> Cc: chopps@chopps.org; lsr-chairs@ietf.org; lsr-ads@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis-02
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Folks,
>> 
>> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:
>> 
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-lsr-rfc8919bis/
>> 
>> Please indicate your support or objections by August 22nd, 2022.
>> 
>> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any
>> IPR that applies to these drafts.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Chris.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email