Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” - draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jie

Response in-line

Thank you

Gyan

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:11 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>
>
> As you mentioned, both MT and MI can provide separate topologies and the
> topology based computation, and MI can provide separate LSDBs at some
> additional cost (separate adjacencies, etc.). In this document, the
> resource of VTN mainly refers to the forwarding plane resources, thus MT is
> chosen as it can provide the required functionality with less overhead.
>
> Gyan> Makes sense.  As their are many ways to provide resource isolation a
> key point that this draft solution that it provides is an optimal resource
> isolation as that relates to forwarding plane isolation of resources thus
> from a TEAS Network slice perspective, MT was chosen purposely as the
> requirement is exclusively for forwarding plane FIB programming isolation
> and not both forwarding and control plane isolation super set provided by
> MI.  This maybe a good point to note as to why MT was chosen.  Also from an
> IGP perspective why ISIS is chosen over OSPF for VTN underlay resource
> provisioning as OSPF does not have a MT concept.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* Monday, March 8, 2021 7:29 AM
> *To:* Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>;
> Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <
> [e-mail]>; Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for “Using IS-IS Multi-Topology
> (MT) for Segment Routing based Virtual Transport Network” -
> draft-xie-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-03
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Authors
>
>
>
> Why was MT chosen and not MI for VTN underlay network slice underpinning.
> MT instances has separate topology but not separate LSDB where MI Multi
> instance RFC 6822 has a separate LSDB for resources isolation and I think
> would be a better fit for VTN underlay provisioning.
>
>
>
> MI
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6822
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:34 AM Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Robert ruminated:
>
>
>
> That said I think perhaps we are indeed missing LROW WG (Local Routing
> Operations WG) where just like in GROW WG where mainly (Global) BGP
> operational aspects are discussed there could be good place to discuss
> operational aspects of link state protocols deployment and use cases. In
> fact perhaps it would also free some LSR bandwidth to really focus on
> protocol extensions.
>
>
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> IGPs grew a zoo of horns and bells by now and no'one tells the operators
> which spines are poisonous ;-)
>
>
>
> --- tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
> --
>
> [image: 图像已被发件人删除。] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike?entry=gmail&source=g>
> *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD