IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Wed, 22 August 2018 18:03 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 29119130EDA for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, 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
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 6fUVMqfhU2hG for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F2DB130EA5 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16096; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1534960977; x=1536170577; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=4zscdPDbgrt/xBUdW6yBscafyjZjyJ5PDcHDLXPFoMY=; b=DLQav9g8iPQjQ8uXeJH7ol6LjOzdOaQp94/xKDUg0DlMz18PLB4uNwR4 rJG6Q4YV8805JotYzt6fRuDeXwO/JiGsh28Pxyp8C6X8UIewV+tO9yv3D 3iGxnagj9Tx40nHREqiWKS454twj0SyXje5cg34fTTjFyBj4Ktj0n5NzF c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CeAABZpH1b/4cNJK1aGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJXeGV/KAqDZYFfhi6MJIINiFOIHYUuFIFmCxgBCoMSgTcCF4JvITQYAQIBAQIBAQJtHAyFNwEBAQEDAQEhCkELEAIBCBEEAQEoAwICAh8GCxQJCAIEAQ0FCIMbgR1MAxUPpA+BLoclDYMsBYkcF4FBP4ESgmQuglZFAQECgSwBEgFVgkuCVwKNAY1oKwkChiyGKoMIH4E+hC+IT4sVYoceAhEUgSQdOGFxcBU7gjUBM4F1MBeIWYU+bwGMdYEfgRwBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,274,1531785600"; d="scan'208,217";a="161081068"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Aug 2018 18:02:56 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w7MI2ux8023262 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Aug 2018 18:02:56 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:02:55 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:02:55 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
Thread-Index: AQHUOZzx1fG+ry0N80OZf0oWOKvmqqTMSsQAgAAEEQD//7bXcA==
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 18:02:55 +0000
Message-ID: <5579bc6a6fd9443f87d148312c004d7f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <8F5D2891-2DD1-4E51-9617-C30FF716E9FB@cisco.com> <C64E476F-1C00-435E-9C74-BEC3053377E8@gmail.com> <2F5FDB3F-ADCA-4DB4-83DA-D2BC3129D2F2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F5FDB3F-ADCA-4DB4-83DA-D2BC3129D2F2@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.62.116]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5579bc6a6fd9443f87d148312c004d7fXCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/VQde43bBahQpokCJe8qLGYK4Tsk>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 18:03:11 -0000

In the discussions which led to the creation of LSVR and RIFT WGs, considerable interest was expressed in working on enhancements to existing Link State protocols. You can peruse the dcrouting mailing list archives.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrouting/

It is rather befuddling to me that the IETF seems to have decided to move forward on two new protocols (no objection from me) but seems to feel there is insufficient reason to move forward on proposals to extend existing IGPs.
I think the suggestion that we need to write (yet another)  requirements document before doing so is a recipe for delay – not for progress.

Multiple drafts have been presented over the course of the past two years and discussed on the list as well.
In the case of two of the drafts:

draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext
draft-li-dynamic-flooding

WG adoption was requested in Montreal.

Please explain why we cannot proceed with “business as usual” as regards these drafts.


   Les


From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:43 AM
To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

+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 <tony1athome@gmail.com<mailto:tony1athome@gmail.com>> 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
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email