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

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yali,

On 04/03/2021 11:42, wangyali wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Please review follows tagged by [Yali].
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:37 PM
> To: wangyali <[e-mail]>; 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]>
> 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".

thanks,
Peter

> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> 
>>
>> Best,
>> Yali
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:12 PM
>> To: wangyali <[e-mail]>; 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]>
>> 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:[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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>