Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Wed, 03 March 2021 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@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 1F5B03A0045 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 01:37:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 cUBN38bkaUoh for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 01:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C26EB3A003F for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 01:37:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5813; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1614764238; x=1615973838; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IK/0rN6CCXIwrkaNE2dYY1p/H225DuJ6bpmLbkAedzg=; b=YGOn+3tAcgiVZ9+Ooa1FosWMO9MS7yxkUUVM6YpcMhIxSlxd65tgvl7f XbBiNEOAl5OwFb97vrr//W7MXKZxFoKlYw3BjBVVjfcElFLac5cTBbuMD pWQHdiE09o71LSJNgKJX9MLeDJUbLu91okqDG9B5IscbAE+qPXKBOiG5D 4=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BdAADQVz9glxbLJq1fAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QESAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBQIFPgXaBK1YBJxIxhEGJBIgoLQOKJIR3jTALAQEBD?= =?us-ascii?q?x0LDAQBAYRNAoF7JjgTAgMBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQGGN?= =?us-ascii?q?g2GRAEBAQMBAQEhDwEFNgkCDAQLBwoEAQEBAgIjAwICIQYfCQgGAQwGAgEBF?= =?us-ascii?q?4JVAYJVAw4hD6xvdoEyhViCUQ1igUSBDioBiAmBRoNzQoFJQoEQASeCcz6CG?= =?us-ascii?q?kIBAYIBBSGCT4JfBIJHYwRSASA7IAoTNB0aDygqEJADBB44gjmTdJFZW4MGg?= =?us-ascii?q?y+TRYI3gmkFBwMfgzeKT4VPjTiCSZRVggmMNo8ND4RrgWshgVkzGggbFTuCa?= =?us-ascii?q?QlHGQ2ISYVvg1aDRoFOhUZAAy84AgYBCQEBAwmMEwEB?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,219,1610409600"; d="scan'208";a="33812340"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Mar 2021 09:37:13 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 1239bCv0021046; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 09:37:12 GMT
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>
References: <CAOj+MMHsDgfD8avbRtvthhd0=c-X25L9HBc0yQTby4vFQKECLQ@mail.gmail.com> <7D53A65F-7375-43BC-9C4E-2EDCF8E138C8@chinatelecom.cn> <CAOj+MMEAJdqvmhfpVEc+M+v_GJ92hmjggbDWr3=gSAM4y3HkYg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV1EBsej6b-++Ne2OpwMb6DMb9dubjf=M1LrOEHjn4MWmA@mail.gmail.com> <57f50a96-4476-2dc7-ad11-93d5e418f774@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405242279@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <26f29385-eedd-444b-ce02-17facf029bd2@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F4052483BC@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9013a79f-0db9-5ec3-5bfd-8f1ab32644d3@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 10:37:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F4052483BC@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/cdkIw3wWxbAD9RuqGXzcEsAmezQ>
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: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 09:37:22 -0000

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.

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>om>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>om>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>om>; Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>cn>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>li>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; 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>om>; Robert Raszuk
>> <robert@raszuk.net>
>> Cc: Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>om>; Aijun Wang
>> <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>cn>; Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>li>; lsr
>> <lsr@ietf.org>rg>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>om>; 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>