Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt

[Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

    The "transition" means transfer/abstract a zone to a single virtual node smoothly and roll the virtual node back to the zone smoothly.
    TTZ draft contains a solution for the "transition", which reduces the traffic interruption when a zone is abstracted to a node and vice versa.

    The values of TTZ include: 1) Less traffic interruption and 2) Simpler operations (refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/H8muAnPwnxVa9d_8FY7x3rofKLw/)

Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 11:02 AM
To: Tony Li <[e-mail]>
Cc: Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg <[e-mail]>; Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "IS-IS Topology-Transparent Zone" - draft-chen-isis-ttz-11.txt


> - The transition mechanisms

Hmmm maybe I missed some explanations by authors, but to me concept of zones is positioned as an addition to the concept of areas or levels - not a replacement of those.

So when you say "transition" means that something existing no longer would be in place after successful deployment of a new thing.

Here I am actually not sure if IGP domain could be only constructed with zones without areas ?

Of course said all of the above I am still not seeing any value in the proposed new abstraction regardless if such abstraction would be positioned to exist in parallel to areas/levels or by definition be nested within the area/level.

r.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:48 PM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Xueson,


My intension was not to talk about math/engineering/marketing or compare the size of marketing department. Them are not relevant to this thread.


You are the one who suggested we leave it up to the market…


I want to make clear about IETF process. In my understanding the document does not need to be perfect at this stage, as long as it is in the right direction to solve some acknowledged problem( IGP scalability). Comments will be helpful if it could provide ideas about how to improve.


That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you all along:

- If there is a benefit to zones, it’s not clear to us.  You need to do a better job articulating that.

- The transition mechanisms seem awkward and painful. Can you reduce the complexity?


But IMO the discussion in the mailing list about this draft has gone off the rails of technology, including keeping challenging tradeoff between value and complexity, which seems reasonable at the first sight, but at this stage, has turned out to be a question with no right answer and may bring endless argument.


Technology is all about maximizing benefits while minimizing costs.  This is why we don’t wire houses using gold and silver.

Yes, this does seem to be an endless argument.  Welcome to the IETF.

Regards,,
Tony

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C71d83d2690d64fd496e108d84f51439b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637346557737088426&sdata=a0CeD%2Fa2B6lsHgM7PaHZkQ1l%2FKu704jhY3XvOdXm0uY%3D&reserved=0>