Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

Hi Robert,

On 03/02/2019 21:37 , Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> I fully agree and support proceeding with  draft-li-dyanmic-flooding and
> to include protocol extensions in it for centralized topology
> propagation as well as basic hooks like "execute dynamic protocol number
> X" for distributed calculations.
>
> However one may observe that separate distributed algorithms may define
> their own protocol extensions and they should not break the above in any
> way.
>
> Then there is already some requirements of building two disjoined
> topologies in any rich ECMP DC fabric one say for primary paths the
> other for backup flows. (Case of active-active dual streaming
> applications). Question arises if this would be addressed also as part
> of basic spec, be combined with one or many of distributed algorithms or
> will require yet one more document which in turn will "extend" all of
> the above ?

primary/backup topologies are used for transmitting user data, not 
necessarily the flooding data. I don't see how they are related to the 
flooding topology, which is used for flooding only.

To the point, if a new distributed algorithm is defined that needs more 
data to be signaled, then we will extend the existing signaling. I don't 
see that being a problem. The way the signaling is defined in 
draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding does allow for such thing.

thanks,
Peter

> And before anyone suggests multi instance approach with
> logical or physical link separation it is not the right direction here.
> If anything perhaps MTR or SR come a bit closer.
>
> Kind regards,
> Robert.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:14 PM <tony.li@tony.li
> <mailto:tony.li@tony.li>> wrote:
>
>
>     I think that this discussion would be greatly clarified if we
>     clearly separated the discussion between
>
>     a) the algorithm for computing the flooding topology, and
>     b) the signaling to indicate how to proceed.
>
>     I think that we are all in agreement that the algorithms can and
>     should be separated from the signaling.
>
>     I think that we are all in agreement that each algorithm should be
>     independent.
>
>     I’m of the opinion that the centralized signaling is a bit more
>     extensive than the signaling for the distributed mode, but that
>     there is also considerable overlap and that things would
>     be unnecessarily redundant if we were to separate them. I believe
>     that we are not in disagreement about the basics for the distributed
>     signaling.
>
>     If you disagree with this, please clearly articulate why you feel
>     the signaling should be separated.
>
>     Regards,
>     Tony
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>