Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Thu, 04 March 2021 14:02 UTC
Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 B35A13A0A7D for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 06:02:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VwoQOY8NuquW for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 06:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (mail-m17638.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CCEE3A0A63 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 06:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [240.0.0.1] (unknown [106.121.128.50]) by mail-m17638.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id E4D2B1C02B1; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 22:02:05 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:02:04 +0800
Message-Id: <6452F125-D1F0-4021-96A7-F77D7D25E3BA@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F40525E4FF@DGGEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Cc: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, 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>
In-Reply-To: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F40525E4FF@DGGEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D52)
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZTEwfSx0YTU0aHUNLVkpNSk9DTU1OSU1JSkhVEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS0JITVVLWQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6NRw6Fww*SD8UMQs2LjAwViFM TD5PFBlVSlVKTUpPQ01NTklNTUlJVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlKS01VSklKVUpJQ1VOS1lXWQgBWUFKS0xISTcG
X-HM-Tid: 0a77fd8baef6d993kuwse4d2b1c02b1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ZZL_VAAkoetcDCY3f0140_g7Ums>
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: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 14:02:17 -0000
Hi, Yali and Peter: How about using “MFI-specified context” in stead of “MFI-specified LSDB”? “MFI-specified context” is subdivided from a single common LSDB within the zero IS-IS instance. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Mar 4, 2021, at 21:45, wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > Please see inline [Yali2]. Thanks a lot. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 6:50 PM > To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> > Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Tianran Zhou <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] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:37 PM >> To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra >> <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> >> Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang >> <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; lsr >> <lsr@ietf.org>; Tianran Zhou <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. > > thanks, > Peter > >> >> thanks, >> Peter >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> Yali >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:12 PM >>> To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>; Gyan Mishra >>> <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> >>> Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang >>> <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>; lsr >>> <lsr@ietf.org>; Tianran Zhou <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] >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:23 PM >>>> To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk >>>> <robert@raszuk.net> >>>> Cc: 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> >>>> 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>> 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>> 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 <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 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> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lsr mailing list >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Tony Li
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… wangyali
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Aijun Wang
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang… Aijun Wang