Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-ymbk-lsvr-lsoe-00

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 11:57:25 +0100

Dear Authors,

Let me just ask one little question ....

It seems that ISIS protocol already meets a "Link State Over Ethernet"
definition so why to invent anything new here ?

If you don't like flooding properties of ISIS just disable it. Do not
flood. Do not run SPF in ISIS. Use ISIS only for p2p discovery.

You get for free out of the box all what you are trying to describe in the
subject document. Integrating open source ISIS code just for discovery (ie.
not worring about optimizations of flooding, back-off, timers, spf etc ...)
will be IMO much faster even using any apache license existing
implementation of ISIS.

Last - as Toerless already indicated - solving inevitable inconsistencies
of running LSOE, CDP & LLDP between various devices or in parallel on the
same links is something that should be addressed from day one. Unless you
assume that if someone is to use LSVR is will also have LSOE and any other
alternative discovery mechanisms will be disabled.

Best,
RR.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 22:09:15 -0400

Hi,

> definition so why to invent anything new here ?

My thought also.

> If you don't like flooding properties of ISIS just disable it. Do not flood.
> Do not run SPF in ISIS.. Use ISIS only for p2p discovery.

IS-IS now explicitly supports link-scoped "flooding" as per RFC 7356
"IS-IS Flooding Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)". It also support 16-bit
TLV lengths. See in particular Extended Level 1 Circuit Scope (E-L1CS)
in RFC 7356.

> will be IMO much faster even using any apache license existing

And authentication (RFC 5310).

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

> Last - as Toerless already indicated - solving inevitable inconsistencies of
> running LSOE, CDP & LLDP between various devices or in parallel on the same
> links is something that should be addressed from day one. Unless you assume
> that if someone is to use LSVR is will also have LSOE and any other
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>