[Lsr] 答复: LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

"Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Thu, 15 August 2019 07:11 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 70F2C12004E for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 QFlINfaMFrS8 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (m176115.mail.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8843012003E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WangajPC (unknown [219.142.69.77]) by m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 497316622F2; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:10:53 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <acee@cisco.com>, <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <8BAFFDB4-62B0-4018-966E-6861D89D0BD1@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8BAFFDB4-62B0-4018-966E-6861D89D0BD1@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:10:54 +0800
Message-ID: <01a501d55338$945c2b40$bd1481c0$@org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A6_01D5537B.A27F6B40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHVURraLOii8Ni+80mn+fcAdO3zAqb7y4KA
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZVktVT0xKQkJCQ0lPS09MS0NCWVdZKF lBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1kJDhceCFlBWTU0KTY6NyQpLjc#WQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6PQw6EQw5TjkCPz0MNTEjPUwx PRMaCj5VSlVKTk1OQ05IS05ITU9NVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxMWVdZCAFZQUJKQ003Bg++
X-HM-Tid: 0a6c941d71c59373kuws497316622f2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/kjN96C9M3ih-4d2Z85rPLPBuqlo>
Subject: [Lsr] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgTFNSIFdvcmtpbmcgR3JvdXAgQWRvcHRpb24g?= =?utf-8?q?Call_for_=22Hierarchical_IS-IS=22_-_draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchi?= =?utf-8?q?cal-isis-01?=
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, 15 Aug 2019 07:11:01 -0000

Some comments on this draft:

1. The size of network is increasing, but it is becoming more flat. Is it the right direction to make the network more hierarchical? 

2. More hierarchical network means the traffic will also be traversed in hierarchical way, is it more efficient?

3. Is there any other methods to scale out the IS-IS deployment?

 

 

Best Regards.

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: lsr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee)
发送时间: 2019年8月12日 22:33
收件人: lsr@ietf.org
主题: [Lsr] LSR Working Group Adoption Call for "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01

 

This begins a two week LSR Working Group Adoption Poll for the "Hierarchical IS-IS" - draft-li-lsr-isis-hierarchical-isis-01. The poll will end at 12:00 AM UTC on August 27th, 2019. Please indicate your support of objection on this list prior to the end of the adoption poll.

 

Thanks,

Acee