Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

On 24/08/18 00:59 , Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Peter,
>
> As previously stated - I'm against gating, it should be developed in parallel and with cooperation with the ongoing/existing work.
> Note - there's a document (albeit expired, it played its role) that talks about generic DC Routing requirements, work in LSR would be scooped to LSR only.
> So no going into religious discussions - new vs old/ls vs pv, etc, but focusing on ospf/isis and what is needed for DC specifically.
> I think it would be good to do some gain/complexity mental exercise...

fair enough. I'm willing to contribute.

thanks,
Peter

>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
> On 8/23/18, 02:05, "Peter Psenak" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>      Jeff, All,
>
>      we have added many extensions to IGP protocols over the years. Many
>      times multiple solutions were proposed for the same or similar problem
>      and WG picked from the set, many times multiple solutions were merged or
>      combined together. We never asked for a requirement document. Even for
>      more significant changes then we are talking about here.
>
>      I understand that the area of DC routing using IGPs is a broader area,
>      but it does not fundamentally change IGPs to warrant the need for
>      requirement document as a prerequisite to move forward with any work
>      that is related to any optimization that may be applicable to DC
>      environment.
>
>      So while I'm not against the existence of the document that would cover
>      the requirements for IGPs in DC environments , I don't believe we should
>      gate all proposed work in this space by such a document. And to be
>      completely honest, the requirements are pretty straightforward for
>      anyone that is familiar with the protocols' operation.
>
>      my 2c,
>      Peter
>
>      On 22/08/18 18:42 , Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>      > +1 Tony
>      >
>      > We could start with a document, similar to dc-routing requirements one
>      > we did in RTGWG before chartering RIFT and LSVR.
>      > Would help to disambiguate requirements from claims and have apple to
>      > apple comparison.
>      > Doing it on github was a good experience.
>      >
>      >
>      > Regards,
>      > Jeff
>      >
>      > On Aug 22, 2018, at 09:27, Tony Li <[e-mail]
>      > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>      >
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>> At IETF 102, there was no dearth of flooding reduction proposals.  In
>      >>> fact, we have so many proposals that there wasn’t agree as how to
>      >>> move forward and we agreed to discuss on the list. This Email is to
>      >>> initiate that discussion (which I intend to participate in but as a
>      >>> WG member).
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> Hi Acee,
>      >>
>      >> Perhaps a useful starting point of the discussion is to talk about
>      >> requirements.  There seem to many different perceptions.
>      >>
>      >> Regards,
>      >> Tony
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> Lsr mailing list
>      >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      >> https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>      >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Lsr mailing list
>      > [e-mail]
>      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>      >
>
>
>
>
> .
>