Naiming,
That’s would be the goal, not to boil the ocean (again)the constrain part would be “improvements on existing protocols”, since we are in LSR, perhaps further scoped to ISIS/OSPF. Cheers, Jeff From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:19 To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> Cc: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>, Tony Li <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward I do think to solve all the data centers (massive or small) requirement, this discussion is very useful. If we can list all the requirements and see what technical approaches we can do to achieve them. But incremental improvements on existing protocols is useful also. They may not solve the complete set of “requirements”, but they do help data center and also non-data center deployments to improve their operations. I would think this group can proceed with both approaches. Regards, - Naiming On Aug 22, 2018, at 11:02 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: In the discussions which led to the creation of LSVR and RIFT WGs, considerable interest was expressed in working on enhancements to existing Link State protocols. You can peruse the dcrouting mailing list archives. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrouting/ It is rather befuddling to me that the IETF seems to have decided to move forward on two new protocols (no objection from me) but seems to feel there is insufficient reason to move forward on proposals to extend existing IGPs. I think the suggestion that we need to write (yet another) requirements document before doing so is a recipe for delay – not for progress. Multiple drafts have been presented over the course of the past two years and discussed on the list as well. In the case of two of the drafts: draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext draft-li-dynamic-flooding WG adoption was requested in Montreal. Please explain why we cannot proceed with “business as usual” as regards these drafts. Les From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:43 AM To: Tony Li <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward +1 Tony We could start with a document, similar to dc-routing requirements one we did in RTGWG before chartering RIFT and LSVR. Would help to disambiguate requirements from claims and have apple to apple comparison. Doing it on github was a good experience. Regards, Jeff On Aug 22, 2018, at 09:27, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: At IETF 102, there was no dearth of flooding reduction proposals. In fact, we have so many proposals that there wasn’t agree as how to move forward and we agreed to discuss on the list. This Email is to initiate that discussion (which I intend to participate in but as a WG member). Hi Acee, Perhaps a useful starting point of the discussion is to talk about requirements. There seem to many different perceptions. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
