Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06

Hi Tony,

> It’s very clear that this is inadequate.

Doesn't this really depend how you architect multiple levels ? Sure you
have some physical topology - but it seems to me that the trick is in
properly laying out levels on top of them and between them.

To my original question - how many levels can you run on the physical box ?
And can levels be locally and logically interconnected ?

Then of course if you have applications (MPLS exact FEC match or SR-MPLS
with SRLBs) which do not allow any aggregation you are pretty much stuck no
matter what :).

Rgs,
R.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:12 PM <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 15, 2020, at 3:45 AM, Henk Smit <henk.ietf@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> BTW, personally I think the proper solution to scale IS-IS to larger
> networks is 8 levels of hierarchy. Too bad that idea gets so little
> push from vendors and operators.
>
>
>
> Hi Henk,
>
> It’s very clear that this is inadequate.  The structure of legacy IS-IS
> areas effectively precludes a scalable network for using lower levels for
> transit. This constrains ISPs to ‘cauliflower’ topology where you have L1
> on the outside, L2 just inside of L1, L3 inside of L2, etc.
>
> We already see networks who are unwilling to use the two levels that we
> have today due to this constraint.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>