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

wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> Wed, 03 March 2021 05:03 UTC

Return-Path: <wangyali11@huawei.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 317FE3A18FA for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 21:03:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 qNbPItrWvMcQ for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 21:03:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 221703A18F5 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 21:03:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Dr1rz0bDrz67tfK; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:55:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.221) by fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 06:02:55 +0100
Received: from DGGEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.40) by fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.2106.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 06:02:55 +0100
Received: from DGGEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.65]) by dggeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0509.000; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:02:46 +0800
From: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.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>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-isis-mfi-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXCjBTvOSvDlAmT0KIo+Iqe5eLAapoLAHQgABk14CAAYtOcP//pmeAgAAMXwCAAAciAIAARbMAgALiyACAAevFYIABA3UAgAGtLPA=
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 05:02:45 +0000
Message-ID: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F4052483BC@dggeml524-mbx.china.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>
In-Reply-To: <26f29385-eedd-444b-ce02-17facf029bd2@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.136]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/sQhHf2qstiaqntMtjYNlYqohFms>
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 05:03:08 -0000

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."

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
>>
>>
> 
> 
>