IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06

tony.li@tony.li Mon, 15 June 2020 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@gmail.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 8968D3A0845; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 AFrD8en7c1oo; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x644.google.com (mail-pl1-x644.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::644]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5022A3A0838; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x644.google.com with SMTP id g12so7134662pll.10; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wNdjqCjncfshl+OkqaOLYc5uc804m4y/zBBx1Vcvi00=; b=dQ5QT8WdKZzdseA6bVB/oAMItVXm2hQETSMwThBdAP3Vt/kkitb5NUL5cHQ9tnbhUq i/to/F3J1R+DES1FsnUyfFqzRXjJov5+Tgs1sPvm2N5skFUkH9hyu1pEVMlTLTaKYimc Dv8TAry2PoszugL2dYjKZiEkcW6apbKkYRPnCuYD4BaWgoJta4RiA91T9Y9ApkNSSiT6 llrUqEd9q5CIxA1ZlNiJWDbYMlB/80E9Qz1gPetp1GVYVpRZTue3ureh7hsUkj0kn4ri neuA4fqUUvv+qtQ0T/rEgW9vCrWWh0qpHMKFBsOnhOEew/+npHflYYAdYvcyfIdKPLAj 11NA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wNdjqCjncfshl+OkqaOLYc5uc804m4y/zBBx1Vcvi00=; b=YsjNfwTQJaT6RYpfDCKNQhZwXntAPFX3qgxcoB314u7v/7QhmjYVwbLB6g4KzfpIDQ KNdXkLLTZ7AygFFQO43RsxiXV+c/B+pB/PCfZiS4ZgGXWLoIxcQTuC4lJs6Q9lTnjkN4 4FbjHKw6peom30L+Ic3dGc9wL8tH5PfTZBxhtZkU0c4MjtugWOdK6BviX5EWkGe9AaOm 6U95dtJi9oJ8WuI8aOE/k95OcOXGSi+TazJcWSF27eOOSOqCmhzX0+LfG8t5yb8ACAl5 Mrv6TLs9LNxQpwzrgMxT21/R51DZqScEr+U1ER5Ov2d6P8wpFQa/eD07ikIPJF72jK00 5IvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533KBzXbSc9f962MLX/O0MvcWHQ54gXxLY2hOMP2R0vOsOG/sqW8 /YaNdjIMXutFvWW93oX3ypE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzyDyKSry7Dx7K4OfgPG3PlSPEl2J0zkdavr/Wtuyjz5xyM2h0X1TxZu4XTTZHSClqXBiXPvA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b787:: with SMTP id e7mr12467889pls.277.1592245945866; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.95.82.39] ([162.210.129.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x14sm12467060pgj.14.2020.06.15.11.32.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: tony.li@tony.li
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hNXGSXyySB9CJBfG-h4j71UJXUfoCrM6Kah3oFNXgYw4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:32:23 -0700
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, lsr@ietf.org, lsr-ads@ietf.org, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Henk Smit <henk.ietf@xs4all.nl>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4D7D7FAE-C3A0-45A1-B460-95C964F1D8AF@tony.li>
References: <F2ACA0D6-34E6-44D1-B55C-B8B513EC6F69@chopps.org> <b583ff75761805bf6440bf75e95c1bf9@xs4all.nl> <03816435-0996-435E-9F2E-60FF6CFD5C21@tony.li> <CAOj+MMGu8mW_utmRxFmk58+r_bgmGg9WwfYy_4Wnyrd0UPO2VA@mail.gmail.com> <57613855-58A4-47A4-92DD-8CEE50FE7A26@tony.li> <CA+wi2hPWD4LxyprKt1ZGCg=_xQQwUXUnH6nWWfMrb2J-uH17jQ@mail.gmail.com> <703940BC-763F-4066-9C70-4734FDB361E5@tony.li> <CA+wi2hNXGSXyySB9CJBfG-h4j71UJXUfoCrM6Kah3oFNXgYw4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/wrsYn67GGuFSptkkbsi63AP_MvU>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06
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: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:32:28 -0000

Tony,

> If we rely on controller fixing LPM as well under failures then really, who needs IGPs anymore anyway except for bunch of loopbacks and SPF for the controller to do all the FIB work and hence discussions like high hierarchies or anisotropic routing are largely superfluous me thinks ;-) 



A fair point that many seem to agree with. The IGP provides topology for the controller and it simply dominates the control plane. The issue, of course, is recovery.  The IGP is still a necessity to provide reachability to the controller and to deal with failure recovery. 

I agree that people who do go down the controller path may avoid certain issues. It also seems to be true that folks who avoid the controller path avoid other issues.

Choose your battles…

T

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email