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

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Yali,

On 01/03/2021 10:49, wangyali wrote:
> 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.

well, the draft says:

"information about LSPs that transmitted in a
  specific MFI are generated to synchronize the LSDB corresponding to
  the specific MFI."

If the above has changed, then please update the draft accordingly.

thanks,
Peter



> 
> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 
>