IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 10 March 2021 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 7552B3A00C8 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:40:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 vc-NplF-Drw0 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:40:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) (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 86C6E3A006A for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:40:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id 18so36308550lff.6 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:40:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qEFxko9F8lXx9Ndws9G+pa5Tq8g+HxG2pqkKWne/Qnc=; b=SM3VEj2jfjnkEVgd+kQLZ5SRyxcMigxsbTAayIexGDzxvcqEbpuDHzd3g7gkXgGBaq c+npIYRtlM3M2e4LcBE9JCYF9WDqznekQLJs8r6SLWpuSeawmVpMYtvZqsKGs2VdFEYS Yn+scqPwO5ZfNjxCMUh+xkztz9ABwlScxVGhXGImWVOw/0Y0E/LkmWTj9aaGSOmm9YO1 Q0O8moY7ilEJmtOlzLSeB04U4911McDcXoh+AExdL4aUMAxPErK3FAR3TVQPc8wY4tpb +2TPesrIw3cT1cdNRrwdOD4Q91r3jVrRxbB1rweVQ1pMTPV+90w8EcVdRxBpHEGAWiYL EL7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qEFxko9F8lXx9Ndws9G+pa5Tq8g+HxG2pqkKWne/Qnc=; b=nInanSaiwQ9mharOhxTAPdisog4YnA7ZDbBudNCgwCH7DhycvfWc/5GjDBZq0nPVPS 5j7PjUhgkCZ3GTkMW5MH0OBYSa4gmBn5L5jEDrdY2/0guTMyy1w43uHy4N+0cPtdVYeF bJtzvUfVzXUT0yCAcVrDJVRORkKMmqruULjIDUG7oiZUZHVgwWtYasocBWbayCg7NQ9T +TbVkuSdQgmsvWRuyaT9N6LIttzDvH6WAI0i0Raa0cvNQnqaLgSAOyPFVwXkXm7yvF8A TSL7fURdf+aLPvMyLXM7xVoGajE9C4W49WDF9X9Pl2hpXiJ0sbHf9e4sUU7Sh3Y0t0eB Xffw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533sFSASbtdFyR8XFRQpvJkdZTW5emlOSgp56lpfcbPQHGyMeYIc 04dXIxUDsdCk9vUg+NBfWiU+2LRpFtujeoumjRUejA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyeBiOqq2RMvto02Oyy+MSYmClsnfPI9cs/2IDZ0WS3olbrjj2/PC3Ja/astuTMwt3if+PoMinR6P8eZR8ZGMs=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:712:: with SMTP id 18mr389908lfh.591.1615416000941; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:40:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOj+MMHsDgfD8avbRtvthhd0=c-X25L9HBc0yQTby4vFQKECLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOj+MMEAJdqvmhfpVEc+M+v_GJ92hmjggbDWr3=gSAM4y3HkYg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1EBsej6b-++Ne2OpwMb6DMb9dubjf=M1LrOEHjn4MWmA@mail.gmail.com> <57f50a96-4476-2dc7-ad11-93d5e418f774@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405242279@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <26f29385-eedd-444b-ce02-17facf029bd2@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F4052483BC@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <9013a79f-0db9-5ec3-5bfd-8f1ab32644d3@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F40525E441@DGGEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <e0bfca37-d9ca-2a06-4fe9-1e6fa3374f45@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F40525E4FF@DGGEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <45db4eee-55cf-f09e-1db3-83c30e434213@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405262C4E@DGGEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <ada0ec9f-a0b5-0f32-dee1-2ff4cfc70013@cisco.com> <CABNhwV2XCEi1A-KkNG7Sbd_gWfO_biuiCVRFRFaMvTo0Mayf6A@mail.gmail.com> <32e3d939-ce1b-ffaf-9ca8-ddbcfa903a9e@cisco.com> <CABNhwV0kH9E7LaZL6X=YVrDEifx1v8gsLt7n5JZ7tLmRL93kwQ@mail.gmail.com> <BY5PR11MB433750D658A877A8606B6405C1929@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F40526E310@DGGEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <BY5PR11MB433772A877BED892FA94EDF4C1929@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV1DD8vM_QEjWNHpo+s09rZei8sgi3dMRjqh750cQBMjyA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4352D1490B7947E02A4F1DEBC1919@MN2PR11MB4352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV3cjHQkxVvO72Y03DjEquwGujQuap1e0iTtVXRWJNo-8g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3cjHQkxVvO72Y03DjEquwGujQuap1e0iTtVXRWJNo-8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 23:39:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEn_GnzXX7=CCnw+Vzsz2m_=E0Ow2zwx8UyZNczrijM8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6a01705bd365870"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Py0u47v27kK1sroDKX_fOQSu_RU>
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: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 22:40:06 -0000

Dear Authors,

Looking at the bigger picture here I have two simple questions.

Q1: Do you plan to submit draft-xxxxx-lsr-ospf-mfi-00.txt any time soon ?

Q2: If No - why not ?
       If Yes - how would you choose to use either
draft-xxxxx-lsr-ospf-mfi-00.txt or
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance-11 for your
non
       routing application (opaque to routing) information flooding ?

Extra bonus question - It seems that the very same application (ifit) is
proposed to be distributed using BGP too (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-01). Can
you provide pros and cons comparison of using link state flooding vs p2mp
BGP model to distribute this type of data ?

Hint: Please do not respond .. Oh this is yet another way ... That is not a
valid answer.

Many thx,
Robert.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email