Re: [Lsr] IS-IS Requirements for Area Abstraction (Corrected Alias for ADs)

please do not co-mingle hierarchical ISIS and flood reduction drafts into
this discussion. Albeit seemingly related the ttz/abstract/flood-reflector
drafts solve a different, valid problem of multiple large operators that
hierachical,flood-reduce cannot solve albeit they can be used @ the same
time. RFC1925 section 5

thanks

--- tony

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:42 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> FYI…
>
> Because I am one of the co-authors of draft-chen-isis-ttz, I am recusing
> myself from this discussion.  Martin will be the responsible AD for it,
> should one be needed.
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On January 27, 2020 at 1:27:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) (acee@cisco.com)
> wrote:
>
> Speaking as WG Co-chair:
>
>
>
> At IETF 107, we had a protracted discussion of several drafts having  goal
> of reducing the amount of link-state information that must be flooded into
> the level-2 area. We have two drafts that do this essentially via
> abstraction of the level-1 areas. These are:
>
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-01.txt
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chen-isis-ttz-07.txt
>
>
>
> There are various reasons why these drafts can’t consolidated involving
> both IPR and government restrictions. Refer to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-lsr-00 for
> the complete discussion.
>
>
>
> We have another draft that also reduces the amount of link-state
> information each IS-IS router must maintain but using IS-IS reflectors.
> This is slightly different but also avoids leaking all the level-1 area
> link-state to the level-2 area.
>
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01.txt
>
>
>
> Given the amount of overlap and the conflicts amongst these drafts, the
> chairs/Ads are now asking whether there is a really a strong requirement to
> advance one or more of these documents. Especially given that we are
> already moving forward with both IS-IS/OSPF flooding reductions and the
> Hierarchal IS-IS work. Additionally,  we anticipate we’ll reach an impasse
> in consolidating these drafts. We’d really like to hear from the operators
> that would deploy these mechanisms.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee and Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>