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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Tue, 09 March 2021 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
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 17CED3A0C1E for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:15:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.619 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_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=iDtseYJO; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=MqaITBzB
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 S2PgRQ4QXkiq for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 676CB3A0C28 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:15:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=103063; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1615259722; x=1616469322; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=x4xa/EASiWq0zjoY496nFC+GifmmfwIvptZcvYGOa3E=; b=iDtseYJOgAHyAj48smfS4ElI058WSvxXZuQSAE29ftiIJKLOcB5xKeH+ X9qFNx4QA8+KdQGc5WabUlI1VMOzhacLPxNuRkoPksRelmVa12zuakkZ3 8rgRSQdwqzmGoWXiECJFwnqypzQAO4patwPckkQMWeJzF9hqm5HauQ/Kz I=;
X-Files: image002.jpg : 356
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AiRtaqh15ZNUDUsKEsmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44?= =?us-ascii?q?YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxWGuadiiVbIWcPQ7PcXw+bVsqW1X2sG7N7BtX0Za5VDWl?= =?us-ascii?q?cDjtlehA0vBsOJSCiZZP7nZiA3BoJOAVli+XzoPk1cGcK4bFrX8TW+6DcIEU?= =?us-ascii?q?D5Mgx4bu3+Bo/ViZGx0Oa/s53eaglFnnyze7R3eR63tg7W8MIRhNhv?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DAAADA50Zg/4sNJK1XAxoBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAwEBAQESAQEBAQICAQEBAYIPgSMwUQd2WhIkMYRBg0gDhTmIVgOBBok?= =?us-ascii?q?XhHeKB4FCgREDTwUDAQcBAQEKAQIBAR0BDAgCBAEBhE0CF4FjAiU4EwIDAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?LAQEFAQEBAgEGBHGFYQ2GRAEBAQECAQEBAwEUAQgCCAESAQElBwkCAQsEAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?GAgcHAwQBAQEFAQIKCwMBBgMCAgIFEAEJBQELFAkIAgQBDQQBBgIGDYJWglU?= =?us-ascii?q?DDiEBDpBdkGoCih52gTKDBAEBBoUQDQuCDAcJgTmCdoQHAQGBDDSDVYEvFhA?= =?us-ascii?q?cgUlCgRABQ4FaAUg1PoIaQgEBAgEVgR4PHBUKBQYBCQgJgk80giuBXA0dPgY?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWIEDRUNAhIOAQEFGwINGQcMCxUKEyoCCA0ECgEBARkPHwkqEJAOBB44aYF?= =?us-ascii?q?QQYdNL4EtihdpiD8DXodUWwqCf4dYAoFohwlIhWmCOIMXgzqKUxeTAIJOkm+?= =?us-ascii?q?BdoINiTyDBY5wJQQPhEQCAgICBAUCDgEBBoFrIzeBIHAVO4JpCUcXAg2ISYV?= =?us-ascii?q?WB4Nog0aBToVFczgCAwMBCQEBAwl8iigFgj8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,234,1610409600"; d="jpg'145?scan'145,208,217,145";a="873720300"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Mar 2021 03:15:18 +0000
Received: from mail.cisco.com (xbe-aln-007.cisco.com [173.36.7.22]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 1293FElk032684 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Mar 2021 03:15:16 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xbe-aln-007.cisco.com (173.36.7.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.2.792.3; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 21:14:44 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:14:42 -0500
Received: from NAM02-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 22:14:42 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Ul4aOpKUzVXf+XLXPFqSnP1P4N2zqqxZ5d74ONYSXtt2tMjK2D635LaXlS3Rz17AVROBtUKZkMepfycaYpoOoxD2YnGUu4NZFQ2/z5BqfhpdevYk0dLSijegfbnW00BinUMcRWgEahwxCoRkYuR61Gcenfp+c0Iw3w0acJ9ExfqFW1lf1C2uk/2g1H5DfaAraBWQzt39JcvLTP8izrFrizp1L37rulBNrd2SmRlKMjw0CeRoCJToKeY3WH2FpwFhwZnZuYBwkEWb7RrbaGwKJ4Sn+jMpsJaMZ+FhVQ0zAukbrRJjzn+LnfNm0Wm5xdiPBCO9L/wgfpZFyi+lnME33g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=r/eYc47rXpOwTZRAXBLuVPHDej9Br5a20tTWT9keF1Q=; b=l+6ZCCpjD7tAU9h+aULMGNFrGNgISJcQfXP+hGQcPh2A+AhCZfZsgoSlpAZ1nv8ebjts0wasmRsdfCJM/5mHB6ORpBKhrcbFuqREwrOlWL1LUf5tJDS0yV63ukcl7k74dNFsiGCUC5BKHJTpQLgsdoc2A7HkK67rBE7JO0d7eu3IRfMrCO8LsozBipLcXDuM6+OwmQaGnpemDRSFFyDbEYpgmbnBTN0JhSg8/y7e1KJkCAHqKHNrcdIEXIkH8CwcIva8xngfOujSS3MTC/UtQD4Iv2t4VZCqA/keuWXCitk2/Bb3eyIN3/Mn1UVtrh07BzWJ+13BG+SmTWeeRmRC/g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=r/eYc47rXpOwTZRAXBLuVPHDej9Br5a20tTWT9keF1Q=; b=MqaITBzBjo6TWD0/qFBDCeFjbLHcwC5lJyVjnv3Bw59m/LaY9ySMMh7DYSUyu8KmvlR3RakH24DtR0sp2SWMGU/Li0QhBuq3E5HBnEna5q0ScDFd/pnZS3DIWwDzE4/zLrdT48D8XX+opaxp4iAribEvUFAX5lnLQ7KbcliUjoE=
Received: from BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:1c1::14) by BYAPR11MB2615.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:c3::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3890.25; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 03:14:40 +0000
Received: from BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::19ab:fe94:ddeb:1ccf]) by BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::19ab:fe94:ddeb:1ccf%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3890.038; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 03:14:40 +0000
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com>
CC: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>, "Aijun Wang" <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXCL5NpsYPKf8SF02ycDH2jqATyKplS9jggAEDRICAAgxWgIAAvmaAgAEhUgCAABBjgIAADF8AgAAHIwCAAEWzAIAC4sgAgAFnXgCAAYfbAIABTKWAgABMrgCAAaR/gIAAAgkAgAAxFoCAABqMAIABhMKAgAAP4gCAAATxgIAAAvwAgAAD2ICABWRZ8A==
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 03:14:39 +0000
Message-ID: <BY5PR11MB433750D658A877A8606B6405C1929@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV0kH9E7LaZL6X=YVrDEifx1v8gsLt7n5JZ7tLmRL93kwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2602:306:36ca:6640:b449:43c3:b4f:8289]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 79c5cbbe-98e6-49e1-a2ea-08d8e2a97a37
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2615:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB26150E6CD19B1137CB44777AC1929@BYAPR11MB2615.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: JVAJZ8ItIjTNXxChAd+Ms8tP2zEaOFEuITcIoF2RxnX0zvnwwiF5scX01TKriN2eraVaV6ZW6cK5aJ5j7Eo7nrkZEcFtQbpEclpxT58YmxDrE8mQES08a4GJreqaplXwiPiukNxXrU0xeNaJOLIhli2k08hNGrfVCKe+Drq7WTZoLgamBecj2k57dqRT+hytqQgUiWXodYMhEwlH0NZCAUmmax9zxSPEQfJl6h3Qm3cPmbTBULJfjestdGMLexwGjIEoVjRnWbBdwhOM1KWC4bQ8kcDHT6meFZfa6ckwU9Fp5bFP75kvvRzKnvzOuzDoJyHVg2aBeqOlsjMhGGhGt+znf5i7E2bbOIgD5ZwzJ7EUukdq+3gbfI0FOZyzCCD/E2H+0wUQaxwRoTCYevggJ+sBvl1EKQqjc1HkMe6FURnM+4h1Jvv8cd8YHsH/hdjNkM8x+SlnADps2vpNR0OUMdmchjyCud2bv11om4X/l5Z+tZqiYie/+pH/1t9FKzEbyHoe02AxOauygG/PlaovLDs97f0py9gaK+vlJgzqp+164cj6DBC3ymIzQ5QGbXHlur8ca695G0o+a6VvXJng6UVCQ0C9Cc6xV1OI7M/gttE=
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(376002)(366004)(396003)(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(66616009)(30864003)(64756008)(478600001)(66476007)(2906002)(66556008)(8936002)(5660300002)(316002)(966005)(76116006)(66446008)(33656002)(8676002)(66946007)(53546011)(4326008)(52536014)(83380400001)(186003)(7696005)(54906003)(99936003)(86362001)(6506007)(9686003)(166002)(6636002)(55016002)(15650500001)(110136005)(71200400001)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?B?YnlnVHJaaUlrVGRHZHRwaCtFUSttZWZFdzlUT0tmb1Q0bWlZb0lRQlZWZldR?= =?utf-8?B?VWNaNzYxRUVUOW5MV0hWdFJPVHNlQ1gxTWxIKzdlZkVzZ2dSb2x3THl1b1oz?= =?utf-8?B?aUxIdW9HLzdESkJOa1hxRld2ZWcvWnhWeUVkajdNWDhPN0ZwVVl4VE56MG5l?= =?utf-8?B?a0ZoQXN3SUk0T0t4ei9Ia2krcTJKVE1uWlRndnNOTWl2eGVKYzhXL2JyWDZD?= =?utf-8?B?QWdXRW94REN3Vkk0QUJGRzNiVjYrR2JoWGxzdFQ3ZkNjRUxLeERlK0dhbUNW?= =?utf-8?B?bU55N2ZVa1NkMHUyK01UcjJWYmJIeUpmeFA1UDRLdXB2a1dQSDljaUlmZUtN?= =?utf-8?B?bTJyQjRNWFRkbzI1WlpYdEVkT21PVmJpK09YWXVXbGcwaFBwemV0bHdzdnl5?= =?utf-8?B?eFI4SUpXM3VQUUdXSmw4K1RGbDhOMk01bzIyQnI1eEIrdm1IYXVvRVRRaVJ5?= =?utf-8?B?UGRmZzR5dVNqKy80U0RIcDBjUTVkQzR2K2xoMndXcVkxNUUvcTRVZDUxYjZM?= =?utf-8?B?QmM5KzNsdkpoMXZCQ2FST3M1UW0weU81c3NHU3g4c3FxYklnb2d0Nk12aTZ2?= =?utf-8?B?TUFMWkhaUFVsR1FpZlpaK3VobHpIWUdYVFYzdElMMytZQnlJeUNleG5xT1p1?= =?utf-8?B?Y3UxNFdnbUlmNC9mVUN1RXl3VDN4U1pQcklyQkg4RHo1amUvemZEdDkyaWR3?= =?utf-8?B?clV5NjRxbFFJWFJvM0kvVmRzV0E1MjZlNDMzM21JSUVLRkxXUm11QkxsUkhS?= =?utf-8?B?Wno5TTh3ZlllRTBOV0hYRzFqN2UvcWZLMG13YlgycWNTb1hreVFvUVFOQnd1?= =?utf-8?B?aDYyZVJiYTZkd210aERIUFQ4Nnd3SGxmdFpnZ0s2Z1NVVVQzUHQ2NDl4MGtE?= =?utf-8?B?K2ZzbzFZWmZEMDgzY2hyaGZESkhkbTdMNHcvck9FcGxZQ2tBcld2cGpwbFVx?= =?utf-8?B?MFFtMkNYQlU4WDVPU0NBUUhlZjdxMlR3bTlnMk1CdUMyblVHdC92TVpSYkk1?= =?utf-8?B?WUNkdlpUTi9yVzd5TC9sb1ZMWkhvdm5EQVgzbXpSZWdVRGZmTEZ1U1NGNVZr?= =?utf-8?B?MnYrWExXNXExTGdRMVhmYUh0amlVOUdXdUlobjV2NVJPREMxU2VGVTFLRWhh?= =?utf-8?B?eG1XZmFhU2krNXRaam9XdFAraHZtdTVZZlZIbjF3S1dtWU1McHM0cktkWXcy?= =?utf-8?B?WjI0RVZCUVNQMFVjR2ZMdEdGN25Ba08zcDczRHpjdHdpNFAvcnF3QVNndWpX?= =?utf-8?B?SElwWXhhYko2MUkrczN4ZUZ6dENDWGdtamM2MzRrTEZyRitEYUlPQWdTOGh1?= =?utf-8?B?UFNhclRaSnFIMEx1NTdOUytrUnVxQTNFMnd0K0ZSQXgzWDFwU2dvYmYxN3VZ?= =?utf-8?B?VTFLWWZ0VTZOS1NOQm5wSzF2bTZNeXlCeTF6a1hiZUdkYm53aEI3aVR2RTVW?= =?utf-8?B?ekJac3JpKzZyaVpCYklwcTVXenZBdWxaU0F2S0VmdTIvc0p2YzRxK2pPcWRk?= =?utf-8?B?Vmlid2Q3YkVGYmhyQ04zWDd0elVBS1RYTnIxb3RVQnVBUVJXWW9uQ0ZoU1Q1?= =?utf-8?B?UUo0NFlvRGVuaEF3VlN1NkFMT0R4eXRYZEVBUGZqSm5hai9oKytSZjIvaEtp?= =?utf-8?B?OExPQkhxWVBaR0lLVURyVSs2NmpRQzlJNnJXODdvWTRPaklrWkxzdnFKY1VE?= =?utf-8?B?dW9zUUs1Y0F3MG9ScUV6NVA3Wmlrb2JSL2swclFuemhKMjdZMEtXMnJhSnRr?= =?utf-8?B?Ryt1eVF2QUx6MVZlT0QzcXFaVVZ1UTBBN0JrYllMTVlKSkkyZUsvd0JWSU16?= =?utf-8?B?YnBIdDVUdytyNlI3SmUreHhTWFhZeEZRa1RBOVZBUHNmdFN1ZWFFVzZGWjU4?= =?utf-8?Q?3mqG6qjAWg0pB?=
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_BY5PR11MB433750D658A877A8606B6405C1929BY5PR11MB4337namp_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 79c5cbbe-98e6-49e1-a2ea-08d8e2a97a37
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Mar 2021 03:14:39.7144 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: JIxfsodbjg58RIbSGENHlMQLsYL053NFaDfd2FcuUkTO9rCBKy0LW6a4CZMJXYk1LdnT1Kwp6jQ/5BXr+ttFYQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2615
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.22, xbe-aln-007.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/T-bmK85533DfkBZfSkTJsyTA4rU>
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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 03:15:28 -0000

Sooo, I have been reluctant to comment on the shortcomings of this draft because I feel there was no need for the draft to be written in the first place.
I had hoped that the authors would think about this a bit more and realize the flaws in the proposed solution – or – as Acee suggested during the WG meeting – they would attempt an implementation and discover what had not yet been realized. This then would end the time the WG is spending on this – which IMO is the right outcome.

As that has not yet happened, perhaps some comments can speed this process along.

The goal of the draft is to support per-MFI LSDBs in the standard instance of IS-IS.  Since it is not possible for a legacy node to differentiate LSP.xx-yy w MFI #1 from the same LSP with MFI #2 (or with no MFI at all), it is clear that an MFI LSP cannot be flooded to a legacy node EVER!!
In order to prevent this, a node has to know whether a given neighbor supports MFI or not. But since the draft defines no signaling in hellos, it cannot tell whether the neighbor supports MFI (not to mention which MFIs – which is important for avoiding flooding MFI LSPs to nodes that aren’t interested in that MFI) you are forced to rely on receiving LSPs (or SNPs) – which brings us to the chicken/egg problem. Neither I nor my neighbor can send an MFI LSP out of fear that the receiver does not support MFI. So MFI flooding is blocked.

This problem can be solved by including the MFI TLV in hellos (analogous to what MI(RFRC 8202) does). But this is not the end of your issues. If you have a LAN, you could have a mix of legacy routers and MFI routers – and again you cannot allow legacy routers to receive MFI LSPs as they will look just like legacy LSPs to the legacy nodes. This means you will have to find a way to avoid ever having MFI PDUs received by legacy nodes (RFC 8202 uses different MAC multicast addresses).

Sooo, once you have addressed both of these issues you will have repeated what RFC 8202 already does. No new benefits here.

This then leaves you with one possible use case: support a single LSDB for all MFIs in the standard IS-IS instance. But, this use case is already provided for (though strongly discouraged) by https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6823#section-5 .

I do understand that some folks want to advertise VTN info in IGPs and that the WG will be discussing this. I am not in favor of doing this – but I recognize it is a legitimate topic for discussion. And if the WG were to approve such functionality we have MI available to be used to provide separation.
(Note that MI has been implemented and successfully deployed by multiple vendors.)

draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi is an unnecessary proposal, seriously flawed, and not achieving any of the goals stated in its introduction.
I ask that the authors abandon this proposal.

   Les


From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2021 8:11 AM
To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>; Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>om>; Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>cn>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>li>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>om>; wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt

Hi Peter

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 10:56 AM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> wrote:
Gyan,

On 05/03/2021 16:46, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> Yali
>
> I agree with a Peter.
>
> As for resource isolation and provisioning of a VTN I think you really
> need separate LSDB instances provided by MT or MI as better suited for
> network slicing.

MT does not provide LSDB separation, only MI does.

thanks,
Peter

   I thought that each MT topology was a separate RIB meaning separate LSDB.  The RFC is confusing.😄

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5120

6<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5120#section-6>-6>.  MT SPF Computation





   Each MT MUST run its own instance of the decision process.  The

   pseudo-node LSPs are used by all topologies during computation.  Each

   non-default topology MAY have its attached bit and overload bit set

   in the MT TLV.  A reverse-connectivity check within SPF MUST follow

   the according MT to assure the bi-directional reachability within the

   same MT.



   The results of each computation SHOULD be stored in a separate

   Routing Information Base (RIB), in normal cases, otherwise

   overlapping addresses in different topologies could lead to

   undesirable routing behavior, such as forwarding loops.  The

   forwarding logic and configuration need to ensure the same MT is

   traversed from the source to the destination for packets.  The

   nexthops derived from the MT SPF MUST belong to the adjacencies



conforming to the same MT for correct forwarding.  It is recommended

   for the administrators to ensure consistent configuration of all

   routers in the domain to prevent undesirable forwarding behavior.



   No attempt is made in this document to allow one topology to

   calculate routes using the routing information from another topology

   inside SPF.  Even though it is possible to redistribute and leak

   routes from another IS-IS topology or from external sources, the

   exact mechanism is beyond the scope of this document.



>
> To me it seems a common LSDB shared among network slices VTN underlay
> could be problematic with network overlap issues.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Gyan
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 10:28 AM Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>
> <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Yali,
>
>     On 05/03/2021 15:31, wangyali wrote:
>      > Hi Peter,
>      >
>      > Thanks for your question. Please see inline [yali3].
>      >
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>
>     <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>]
>      > Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:20 PM
>      > To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>
>     <mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>
>     <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>>
>      > Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com> <mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com>>>;
>     Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
>     <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>>>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li>
>     <mailto:tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li>>>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>>;
>     Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com> <mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>>>
>      > Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
>     draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
>      >
>      > Hi Yali,
>      >
>      > On 04/03/2021 14:45, wangyali wrote:
>      >> Hi Peter,
>      >>
>      >> Please see inline [Yali2]. Thanks a lot.
>      >>
>      >> -----Original Message-----
>      >> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>
>     <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>]
>      >> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 6:50 PM
>      >> To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>
>     <mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>>; Gyan Mishra
>      >> <hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com> <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>>; Robert
>     Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>>
>      >> Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com> <mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com>>>;
>     Aijun Wang
>      >> <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>>>; Tony
>     Li <tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li> <mailto:tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li>>>; lsr
>      >> <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>>; Tianran Zhou
>     <zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com> <mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>>>
>      >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
>      >> draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
>      >>
>      >> Hi Yali,
>      >>
>      >> On 04/03/2021 11:42, wangyali wrote:
>      >>> Hi Peter,
>      >>>
>      >>> Please review follows tagged by [Yali].
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> -----Original Message-----
>      >>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>
>     <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>]
>      >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:37 PM
>      >>> To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>
>     <mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>>; Gyan Mishra
>      >>> <hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com> <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>>; Robert
>     Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>>
>      >>> Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com> <mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com>>>;
>     Aijun Wang
>      >>> <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>>>;
>     Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li> <mailto:tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li>>>; lsr
>      >>> <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>>; Tianran Zhou
>     <zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com> <mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>>>
>      >>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
>      >>> draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
>      >>>
>      >>> Yali,
>      >>>
>      >>> On 03/03/2021 06:02, wangyali wrote:
>      >>>> Hi Peter,
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Thanks for your comments. Yes. I am improving this sentence.
>     Please review the following update.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> OLD: " And Level 1/Level 2 PSNP and Level 1/Level 2 CSNP
>     containing information about LSPs that transmitted in a specific MFI
>     are generated to synchronize the LSDB corresponding to the specific
>     MFI."
>      >>>>
>      >>>> NEW: "And Level 1/Level 2 PSNP and Level 1/Level 2 CSNP
>     containing information about LSPs that transmitted in a specific MFI
>     are generated to synchronize the MFI-specific sub-LSDB. Each
>     MFI-specific sub-LSDB is subdivided from a single LSDB."
>      >>>
>      >>> please specify sub-LSDB.
>      >>> [Yali] Thanks for your comment. But to avoid introducing a new
>     term, I change to use "MFI-specific LSDB" instead of " MFI-specific
>     sub-LSDB ".  And we give the explanation that "Each MFI-specific
>     LSDB is subdivided from a single LSDB."
>      >>
>      >> I wonder what is the difference between "MFI-specific LSDB
>     subdivided from a single LSDB" versus the "MFI-specific LSDB".
>      >> [Yali2]: Actually I am trying to optimize and accurately
>     describe the key point that multiple Update processes associated
>     with each MFI operate on a common LSDB within the zero IS-IS
>     instance, and each Update process is isolated from each other and
>     does not affect each other.
>      >> So we say "MFI-specific LSDB subdivided from a single LSDB",
>     which may explicitly indicate each MFI-specific LSDB shares a common
>     LSDB but each Update process associated with a MFI is isolated.
>     However, from your previous question and suggestions,  "MFI-specific
>     LSDB" looks like unclear and misleading. Any good idea on improving
>     the expression are welcome.
>      >
>      >
>      > it's not the name that is as important. It's the concept that
>     looks questionable - how well can you isolate the update processing
>     if the data are part of the same LSDB and whether such update
>     process separation would prove to be useful at all. I don't know, so
>     far I have not seen any evidence.
>      > [yali3] This draft defines a new TLV, i.e. MFI-ID TLV,  which may
>     be included in each Level 1/Level 2 IS-IS LSPs and SNPs. Hence, each
>     Level 1/Level 2 LSPs and SNPs associated with each Update Process
>     can be uniquely identified by MFI-ID.
>      > In this draft, each flooding instance has its own separated
>     Update process, which isolates the impact of application information
>     flooding on the IS-IS protocol operation. So each Level 1/Level 2
>     LSP associated with a specific MFI carries flooding information
>     belonging to the specific MFI. And Level 1/Level 2 PSNP and Level
>     1/Level 2 CSNP containing information about LSPs that propagated in
>     the specific MFI are generated to synchronize the MFI-specific LSDB.
>
>     - by using the same LSDB to store the MFI specific information only a
>     limited separation can be achieved. Multi-instance gives you better
>     separation.
>
>     - you carved the MFI specific LSP space from the common LSP space. This
>     may result in the non routing apps consuming the space that would
>     otherwise be required for regular routing information, compromising the
>     basic functionality of the protocol. Multi-instance does not have that
>     problem.
>
>     my 2c,
>     Peter
>
>
>      >
>      > thanks,
>      > Peter
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >>
>      >> thanks,
>      >> Peter
>      >>
>      >>>
>      >>> thanks,
>      >>> Peter
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Best,
>      >>>> Yali
>      >>>>
>      >>>> -----Original Message-----
>      >>>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>
>     <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>]
>      >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:12 PM
>      >>>> To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>
>     <mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>>; Gyan Mishra
>      >>>> <hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com> <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>>; Robert
>     Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>>
>      >>>> Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com> <mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com>>>;
>     Aijun Wang
>      >>>> <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>>>;
>     Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li> <mailto:tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li>>>; lsr
>      >>>> <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>>; Tianran Zhou
>     <zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com> <mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>>>
>      >>>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
>      >>>> draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
>      >>>>
>      >>>> 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:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>
>     <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com<mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>]
>      >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:23 PM
>      >>>>> To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com<mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>>>; Robert Raszuk
>      >>>>> <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>>
>      >>>>> Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com> <mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com<mailto:huzhibo@huawei.com>>>;
>     Aijun Wang
>      >>>>> <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>>>;
>     Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li> <mailto:tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li>>>; lsr
>      >>>>> <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>>; Tianran Zhou
>     <zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com> <mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>>>; wangyali
>      >>>>> <wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com> <mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com<mailto:wangyali11@huawei.com>>>
>      >>>>> 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
>     <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
>      >>>>>> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>>> 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
>     <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>>
>      >>>>>>          <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
>     <mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn<mailto:wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>>>> wrote:
>      >>>>>>
>      >>>>>>              Hi, Robert:
>      >>>>>>
>      >>>>>>              Separate into different protocol instances can
>     accomplish the
>      >>>>>>              similar task, but it has<https://www.google.com/maps/search/ar+task,+but+it+has?entry=gmail&source=g> 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
>     <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net> <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
>      >>>>>>>              <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>
>     <mailto:robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>>> wrote:
>      >>>>>>>
>      >>>>>>>              Hi Yali,
>      >>>>>>>
>      >>>>>>>                  If this was precise, then the existing
>     multi-instance
>      >>>>>>>                  mechanism would be sufficient.
>      >>>>>>>                  [Yali]: MFI is a different solution we
>     recommend
>     <https://www.google.com/maps/search/lution+we+recommend?entry=gmail&source=g>
>     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
>      >>>>>>> Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>>>
>      >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>      >>>>>>
>      >>>>>>          _______________________________________________
>      >>>>>>          Lsr mailing list
>      >>>>>> Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>> <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>>>
>      >>>>>> 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
>      >>>>>>
>      >>>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>
> /M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike
> /Silver Spring, MD
>
>
--

[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD