Les & Tony Please see my replies inline
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 1:49 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Tony/Gyan – > > > > Please find my replies inline. > > > > *From:* Lsr <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:48 AM > *To:* Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; Huaimo Chen <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem > (acee) <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Flooding Topology Computation Algorithm - > draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction-08 Working Group Adoption Call > > > > > > Hi Gyan, > > > > > > This is a much needed feature that operators have been needing for densely > meshed topologies that commonly exist in data centers to accommodate very > high bandwidth E-W traffic. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Please look at the feature description and it does seem to be exactly the > same as this draft. Please confirm. > > > > > > It would appear to be a different, proprietary, and unpublished algorithm.. > > > > > *[Les:] Yes, this is a different algorithm than either > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm/> > or https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction/>* > * <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cc-lsr-flooding-reduction/>* > > *We are contemplating submitting a draft for this algorithm to the WG.* > > * Gyan> I think that would be good for your customers so it’s not > proprietary.* > > > > > > This will give us three different implementations, using three different > algorithms, none of which will inter-operate. Whee!!! :-( > > > > > > *[Les:] As I understand it, draft-chen only supports centralized mode – > which is why it is Informational track and does not have interoperability > concerns.* > > *Sarah/Tony - do you have plans to extend this to support distributed mode > and then standardize it?* > > > > *At present there are no standard algorithm candidates which have achieved > WG status – though that likely will change very soon.* > > *And the point of allowing multiple standardized algorithms to be defined > was in the expectation that more than one might be proven useful.* > > * Gyan> So along those same lines in theory we could have hypothetically 3 > algorithms and all three on standards track which would give operators like > Verizon and 3 options to pick from based on the physical topology use case.* > *Caveat would be - would vendors really want to develop other vendors > options at a cost especially if there are more then two or rather keep > their own option proprietary. I think * > There maybe other features that you could get away with interoperability > not being a concern but I think the flooding algorithm I would think would > have to be the same for 2 vendors to be interoperable. > > There maybe other vendors due to industry demand have to get the feature > deployed before it reaches standards vendor consensus with the IETF. > > > > > > Our implementation shipped last year. > > > > *[Les:] As did Cisco’s.* > > > > > > We are testing this feature and planning to deploy but wanted to ensure > that this is the same as the draft on the standards track. > > > > > > It does not appear to be, but someone from Cisco should confirm. > > > > *[Les:] Confirmed.* > > > > * Les* > > > > Tony > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
