Re: [OPSAWG] [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Speaking as WG member:

With respect to your use case for transit router advertisement… What I was unsuccessfully trying to articulate to you during the interim was that the management system will typically not know the exact path between two endpoints so the use case is flawed. In fact, many times tracing is used by the management system to discover the path – as in traceroute…

Thanks,
Acee



From: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 3:22 AM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]>, Tony Li <[e-mail]>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?

Hi Acee,

About the “IFIT specific information channel”, as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit/
we propose to use bgp enabled sr-policy for IFIT auto deployment.
It’s reasonable to incorporate both traffic engineering and monitoring.

Thanks,
Tianran

发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2020年4月7日 2:54
收件人: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>; Tony Li <[e-mail]>
抄送: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
主题: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?

Speaking as WG member – It seems that additional IFIT-specific information is required to make this useful and the IGPs are certainly not the case. Additionally, the point was made that an IFIT specific information channel would anyway be required to provision the telemetry generation.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, April 6, 2020 at 2:33 PM
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>>, Tony Li <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] I,Scope of FIT Capability: a node or a link?

+1
Please do not take my comments about link vs node capabilities, as support for the solution, they are semantical.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Apr 6, 2020, 8:58 AM -0700, Tony Li <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, wrote:


This discussion is interesting, but please do not ignore the considerable feedback from multiple folks indicating that this advertisement does not belong in the IGP at all (regardless of scope).
My opinion on that has not changed.


+1

IS-IS is not the correct place to implement Service Discovery mechanisms. The management plane already has ample mechanisms for service and capability discovery.

Tony


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr