From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Fri Nov 1 00:31:15 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28928 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:31:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA15Sxv22947; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:29:00 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA15PLv22887 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:25:21 -0500 Received: from xover.netplane.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28617 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by XOVER.dedham.mindspeed.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B0HPS4T>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:25:11 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Jonnala, Nagi" To: "'Laura Liu'" Cc: "'Jeff Parker'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] isisAreaAddrTable index MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:27:23 -0500 Laura, I agree with you that area address will keep index permanent during neighbor configuration. But I have an alternative view point. For the current isisAreaAddrTable definition, we have only one object isisAreaAddr which is also used in indexing the table. Because it is read-only object, we can do only GET and GET-NEXT operations on the table. In other words, we are only interested in seeing the contents of the table, least bothering about the order of the table. I'm concerned about providing the isisAreaAddr(because it also acts as the index) to GET the same object. i.e., There is nothing much GET can do here, we give something to check if it is there or not. Ofcourse GET-NEXT does the job well(no need of supplying the index initially). So my question remains -- When we are least bothered about keeping the index permanent, why can't we just have a simple index like isisAreaAddrIndex? Thanks Nagi. | -----Original Message----- | From: Laura Liu [mailto:lliu@chiaro.com] | Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:08 PM | To: Jonnala, Nagi; 'Jeff Parker' | Cc: ISIS-WG (E-mail) | Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] isisAreaAddrTable index | | | | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Jonnala, Nagi [mailto:nagij@netplane.com] | > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:33 PM | > To: 'Jeff Parker' | > Cc: ISIS-WG (E-mail) | > Subject: [Isis-wg] isisAreaAddrTable index | > | > | > | > Jeff, | > | > Thanks for the clarification on isisISAdjAreaAddrTable. | > | > I have another question on isisAreaAddrTable(The | union of the | > sets of area | > addresses reported in all Level 1 LSPs). I noticed | > isisAreaAddr is one of | > the index into the table. Being the read-only object, Can't | > we consider | > having an isisAreaAddrIndex instead | > of direct object as the index. | > | | There was a discussion on using IP address or area | address as part of index, | using area address will keep index permanent during | neighbor configuration. | The order of manual/union addresses could change when | a new area address | being added/deleted by a neighbor. I would like to see | area address as part | of index in isisAreaAddrTable and isisManAreaAddrTable. | isisISAdjAreaAddrTable is ok to use | isisISAdjAreaAddrIndex, since | isisISAdjIndex is before isisISAdjAreaAddrIndex to | point out which neighbor | it refers to. | | regrads, | | Laura | | > Notes: | > | > 1) We have the same kind of isisISAdjAreaAddrIndex for | > isisISAdjAreaAddrTable. | > | > 2) For isisManAreaAddrTable, it does make sense to have | > isisManAreaAddr as the index because we use it for SET | > operations also. | > | > Thanks | > Nagi. | > | > | > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Isis-wg mailing list | > Isis-wg@ietf.org | > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg | > | _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Fri Nov 1 08:55:21 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07064 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 08:55:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA1DsVv25277; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 08:54:31 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA1DmZv25043 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 08:48:35 -0500 Received: from rchss001.chiaro.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA06769 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 08:46:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23573 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2002 13:38:48 -0000 Received: from rchss001.chiaro.com (HELO mail.chiaro.com) (63.88.196.81) by rchss001.chiaro.com with SMTP; 1 Nov 2002 13:38:48 -0000 Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <49BYXRHJ>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:48:07 -0600 Message-ID: From: Laura Liu To: "Jonnala, Nagi" Cc: "'Jeff Parker'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] isisAreaAddrTable index MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_IS_MIME_Boundary" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:48:06 -0600 --=_IS_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Nagi, If we use isisAreaAddrIndex, when there is a configuration changes of adding/deleting an area address, the same index could refer to a different area address value. It will confuse me. It seems you would like to make area address a read-write object, then area address should not be part of index. regards, Laura > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonnala, Nagi [mailto:nagij@netplane.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:27 PM > To: 'Laura Liu' > Cc: 'Jeff Parker'; 'isis-wg@ietf.org' > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] isisAreaAddrTable index > > > > Laura, > > I agree with you that area address will keep index permanent > during neighbor > configuration. But I have an alternative view point. > > For the current isisAreaAddrTable definition, we have only one object > isisAreaAddr > which is also used in indexing the table. Because it is > read-only object, we > can > do only GET and GET-NEXT operations on the table. In other > words, we are > only interested in seeing the contents of the table, least > bothering about > the order > of the table. > > I'm concerned about providing the isisAreaAddr(because it > also acts as the > index) > to GET the same object. i.e., There is nothing much GET can > do here, we give > something > to check if it is there or not. Ofcourse GET-NEXT does the > job well(no need > of supplying the index initially). > > So my question remains -- When we are least bothered about > keeping the index > permanent, why can't we just have a simple index like > isisAreaAddrIndex? > > Thanks > Nagi. > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: Laura Liu [mailto:lliu@chiaro.com] > | Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:08 PM > | To: Jonnala, Nagi; 'Jeff Parker' > | Cc: ISIS-WG (E-mail) > | Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] isisAreaAddrTable index > | > | > | > | > | > -----Original Message----- > | > From: Jonnala, Nagi [mailto:nagij@netplane.com] > | > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:33 PM > | > To: 'Jeff Parker' > | > Cc: ISIS-WG (E-mail) > | > Subject: [Isis-wg] isisAreaAddrTable index > | > > | > > | > > | > Jeff, > | > > | > Thanks for the clarification on isisISAdjAreaAddrTable. > | > > | > I have another question on isisAreaAddrTable(The > | union of the > | > sets of area > | > addresses reported in all Level 1 LSPs). I noticed > | > isisAreaAddr is one of > | > the index into the table. Being the read-only > object, Can't > | > we consider > | > having an isisAreaAddrIndex instead > | > of direct object as the index. > | > > | > | There was a discussion on using IP address or area > | address as part of index, > | using area address will keep index permanent during > | neighbor configuration. > | The order of manual/union addresses could change when > | a new area address > | being added/deleted by a neighbor. I would like to see > | area address as part > | of index in isisAreaAddrTable and isisManAreaAddrTable. > | isisISAdjAreaAddrTable is ok to use > | isisISAdjAreaAddrIndex, since > | isisISAdjIndex is before isisISAdjAreaAddrIndex to > | point out which neighbor > | it refers to. > | > | regrads, > | > | Laura > | > | > Notes: > | > > | > 1) We have the same kind of isisISAdjAreaAddrIndex for > | > isisISAdjAreaAddrTable. > | > > | > 2) For isisManAreaAddrTable, it does make sense to have > | > isisManAreaAddr as the index because we use it for SET > | > operations also. > | > > | > Thanks > | > Nagi. > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > > | > _______________________________________________ > | > Isis-wg mailing list > | > Isis-wg@ietf.org > | > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > | > > | > --=_IS_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----------------------------------------- (on rchss001) This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of Chiaro Networks, Ltd., and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s), or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies from your system. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. --------------------------------------------------------- --=_IS_MIME_Boundary-- _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Fri Nov 1 19:35:04 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10354 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:35:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA20YYv16026; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:34:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA20VYv15969 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:31:34 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA10167 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:29:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 187mCA-000NSO-00; Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:31:22 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <18186215911.20021101163108@psg.com> To: Jeff Parker CC: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:31:08 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff, > First, let me say that I think this is a great step forward. > Having said that, it is something we should consider pretty > carefully in the very limited time a Last Call allows. I don't consider the LC as the only time frame for the discussion. It definitely encourages document review, though, and we will also spend time on this in Atlanta. We do need, however, to have a dead line if we want to get somewhere sooner than 5 years from now. My plan was to discuss this on the list now, then in Atlanta and then, depending on the results of the review, possible issue another LC if warranted. > I re-read this last night, and started going down the list > of current Drafts, and tried to figure out where each would > fall. I would be interested to see how others would sort > the documents. Granted that we can still publish anything > we like: the issue is simply the status of the document. > But it is an interesting exercise. > For example, where > does the M-IS-IS work fall? Could you have chosen another draft? ;) Seriously though, as you have probably noticed, the key point that makes an IS-IS extension something that should be an IETF STD tracks submission is its being Internet-specific and not generally applicable to the generic IS-IS framework. The reason for that is that we're NOT taking over the protocol, but are trying to find a reasonable balance between JTC1 owning the protocol and IETF being able to STD'ize Internet-related stuff. It's been a while since I read the MT draft last time, but if I'm not mistaken, the MT concept is quite generic, and hence (lacking detailed analysis) should probably be published as Info here and go to JTC1. One important point here is that even when we publish stuff as Info, we still apply the STD submission process (has been happening to latest approved ISIS spec), which allows us to request fast track procedure in JTC1, which is supposed to be much faster (never tried, so don't know how fast is faster.) > Comments below marked with leading >>. >>> So thinking out loud about the split > 2. Definitions > 2.1 Core IS-IS Mechanisms > Core IS-S Mechanisms are subsystems with associated algorithms, data > structures, and PDU formats as specified in (ISO/IEC 10589), > constituting the core of the IS-IS protocol and including the > following elements: > a) Framework of PDU formats, including standard TLVs >>> Standard means? Things defined in 10589, plus anything that > JTCL adds? I'm a bit leary about this term, if only because > it suggests that TLV 0x81 isn't 'standard'. Perhaps we could > clarify, or call this something like "JTCL Standard". You got it right, "standard" here and below is alias to "as specified in (ISO/IEC 10589)" above. I'll see how this might be clarified. > b) Encapsulation of PDUs >>> Tony has spoken to this. Note that the agreement allows us to add supplementary core mechanisms (encapsulation included) provided that it is obvious that their applicability is Internet-specific, not generally applicable to the generic IS-IS framework, etc. (see my answer to Tony's message) > c) Adjacency state machine and formation logic > We have recently played in these waters > when adding the clause about matching IP interface > addresses on either side. I thought about this when working on the text. I think this can be abstracted as a supplementary PDU filtering mechanism, which is definitely Internet-specific. > d) DIS election algorithm > e) Initial LSP synchronization via CSNP exchange > f) Asynchronous LSP flooding (including DIS flooding behavior) >>> The recent draft on flooding over multiple links applies This one will have to go to ISO, unless I'm mistaken that it is not at all Internet-specific ;) > g) LSP database maintenance including LSP origination, aging, and > purging > h) Standard topology abstraction >>> What about "P2P over LANs"? Same as above. Nothing Internet-specific here. > 2.2 Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions: > Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions are extensions to the IS-IS proto- > col that are within the work scope of the IETF (including, but not > limited to IPv4 or IPv6 unicast and multicast routing, MPLS, MPLS TE, > GMPLS, or any other routing technology that the IETF decides to work > on in future), and: >>> That last clause "or any other routing technology that the IETF > decides to work on in future)" is very vague. Would it apply to > MPLS, where it not already grandfathered in? (I could argue that > MPLS is a switching rather than routing technology) Yes, MPLS would be included. Whether we like it or not, it's our baby and could be considered as another forwarding technique, complementary to the destination-based. If/when we come up with the next gen routing & addressing architecture, the clause will allow us to put related extensions to STD track as well. Thanks. Alex _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Sat Nov 2 11:13:51 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07924 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:13:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA2GD1v06197; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:13:01 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA2G9Uv06096 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:09:30 -0500 Received: from bridge.axiowave.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07819 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:07:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jeff Parker To: "'Alex Zinin'" , Jeff Parker Cc: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:09:20 -0500 > I don't consider the LC as the only time frame for the discussion. Great - let's see if I can understand better the verbage we have. > One important point here is that even when we publish stuff as Info, > we still apply the STD submission process (has been happening to > latest approved ISIS spec), which allows us to request fast track > procedure in JTC1, which is supposed to be much faster (never tried, > so don't know how fast is faster.) > > > > a) Framework of PDU formats, including standard TLVs > > >>> Standard means? Things defined in 10589...? > > You got it right, "standard" here and below is alias to "as specified > in (ISO/IEC 10589)" above. I'll see how this might be clarified. I'll look for the clarification > > c) Adjacency state machine and formation logic > > > We have recently played in these waters > > when adding the clause about matching IP interface > > addresses on either side. > > I thought about this when working on the text. I think this can be > abstracted as a supplementary PDU filtering mechanism, which is > definitely Internet-specific. "PDU filtering mechanisms"? In Drama, I believe this is called "Deus ex Machina". I think we should call a spade a spade, and retain some control over adjacency formation in IP networks. Consider the missing ISH in adjacency formation. I claim the filtering concept doesn't apply, as we want to say it is acceptable to form an adjacency in the absence of the ISH. No amount of filtering will restore something that isn't there. Help me understand why JTC1 would be motivated to drop the requirement for the ISH. > >>> The recent draft on flooding over multiple links applies > > This one will have to go to ISO, unless I'm mistaken that it > is not at all Internet-specific ;) > > >>> What about "P2P over LANs"? > > Same as above. Nothing Internet-specific here. Agreed on both. So when we have a new idea, we write it up/implement it, and issue an Informational RFC and wait for JTC1 to rule on it. Is that enough cover to maintain the rate of inovation? > > 2.2 Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions: > > > any other routing technology that the IETF > > decides to work on in future) > > >>> That last clause "or any other routing technology that the IETF > > decides to work on in future)" is very vague. Would it apply to > > MPLS, where it not already grandfathered in? (I could argue that > > MPLS is a switching rather than routing technology) > > Yes, MPLS would be included. Whether we like it or not, it's our baby > and could be considered as another forwarding technique, complementary > to the destination-based. If/when we come up with the next gen routing > & addressing architecture, the clause will allow us to put related > extensions to STD track as well. > > Alex Alex - I agree MPLS is our baby. My question is, "Does the language above cover it?" I guess I am being legalistic, but I find the phrase at once too broad (whatever we want to do in the future might include re-defining 10589) and too restrictive (routing technology may rule out MPLS). If good fences make good neighbors, it is important that we make the fence correct. - jeff parker _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Sat Nov 2 18:35:13 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14902 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA2NVXv28060; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:31:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA2NS6v27974 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:28:06 -0500 Received: from net4u.net4u.ch (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14790 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:25:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from net4u.ch (zux006-009-136.adsl.green.ch [81.6.9.136]) by net4u.net4u.ch (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA2NRvh24564 for ; Sun, 3 Nov 2002 00:27:58 +0100 Message-ID: <3DC45EFA.3090301@net4u.ch> From: Tony Przygienda Reply-To: prz@net4u.ch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Isis-wg] last call on draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-05] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------000303000808050708030903" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 00:25:46 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000303000808050708030903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------000303000808050708030903 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: [Isis-wg] last call on draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-05" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: [Isis-wg] last call on draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-05" X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <3DB7B899.2010408@net4u.ch> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:08:41 +0200 From: Tony Przygienda Reply-To: prz@net4u.ch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Zinin Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] last call on draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-05 References: <3DB719B9.3040404@net4u.ch> <81324101883.20021023175553@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Zinin wrote: >Tony, > > Is it possible to have a summary of the changes? > (The list might be interested in it as well) > Thanks! > Rough Diff (from Naiming's mail) - removed Management color sub-tlv - removed the Generic SPF description and bit introduced in ver 04. - added forwarding scenario considerations - added management considerations - added Overload bit capability per MT - reserved MT #4 for IPv6 multicast routing thanks -- tony --------------000303000808050708030903-- _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Mon Nov 4 04:06:08 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA07166 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 04:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA490ov12547; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 04:00:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA48vlv12439 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 03:57:47 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06934 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 03:55:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mshand-w2k.cisco.com (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp4317.cisco.com [10.50.16.220]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA13070 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:57:35 GMT Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021104084059.0457a728@jaws.cisco.com> X-Sender: mshand@jaws.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: isis-wg@ietf.org From: mike shand Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Isis-wg] draft-ietf-isis-restart-02 Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 08:46:29 +0000 I've submitted a revised version of the isis-restart draft, which should be appearing in the usual places in due course. I've made 3 main changes (apart from a few editorial tidy ups). 1) Added the text that Naiming wanted about allowing timer refresh 2) Clarified when you are allowed to run SPF etc. with respect to T2 and T3 expiry 3) Explicitly stated that the LAN-ID should be preserved over a restart. Mike _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 04:13:48 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08279 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 04:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA599rv26039; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 04:09:54 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA594Rv25243 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 04:04:27 -0500 Received: from lxmail.xebeo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA08112 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 04:01:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28977 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2002 09:04:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO xebeo.com) (192.168.2.180) by lxmail.xebeo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2002 09:04:14 -0000 Message-ID: <3DC7898C.1070407@xebeo.com> From: Tony Przygienda Reply-To: prz@xebeo.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:04:12 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit pretty scarse so far albeit we have plenty drafts & updates between last time and now. A possible conclusion would be that most ISIS working group attendants are boondogles that don't go to blue-collar places like Atlanta ;-) Duration Topic Pres 10min Administrativa Tony P. 10min M-ISIS update Tony P. thanks -- tony _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 06:22:47 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12315 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5BJHv01639; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:19:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5BBwv00906 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:11:58 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10964; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:09:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211051109.GAA10964@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-00.txt Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 06:09:27 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF. Title : Recommendations for Interoperable IP Networks using IS-IS Author(s) : J. Parker Filename : draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-00.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2002-11-4 The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than it is in theory. Appologies to Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut This document discusses a number of differences between the IS-IS protocol used to route IP traffic as described in ISO 10589 [1] and in RFC 1195 [2] and the protocol as it is deployed today. These differences are discussed as a service to those implementing, testing, and deploying the IS-IS Protocol to route IP traffic. A companion document describes the differences between the protocol described in ISO 10589 and current practice. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172158.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172158.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 06:24:44 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12460 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:24:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5BLOv01830; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:21:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5BC2v00921 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:12:02 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10995; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:09:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211051109.GAA10995@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 06:09:31 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF. Title : Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using IS-IS Author(s) : J. Parker Filename : draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2002-11-4 In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut This document discusses a number of differences between the IS-IS protocol as described in ISO 10589 [1] the protocol as it is deployed today. These differences are discussed as a service to those implementing, testing, and deploying the IS-IS Protocol. A companion document discusses differences between the protocol described in RFC 1195 [3] for routing IP traffic. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172218.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172218.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 06:27:22 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12604 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:27:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5BOHv01981; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:24:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5BC7v00930 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:12:07 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11007; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 06:09:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211051109.GAA11007@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 06:09:36 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF. Title : Routing IPv6 with IS-IS Author(s) : C. Hopps Filename : draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2002-11-4 This draft specifies a method for exchanging IPv6 routing information using the IS-IS routing protocol. The described method utilizes 2 new TLVs, a reachability TLV and an interface address TLV to distribute the necessary IPv6 information throughout a routing domain. Using this method one can route IPv6 along with IPv4 and OSI using a single intra-domain routing protocol. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172232.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172232.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 07:39:01 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15641 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:39:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5CZav07037; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:35:37 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5CW3v06928 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:32:03 -0500 Received: from tahoe.sj.allegronetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15218 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by tahoe.allegronetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 04:31:52 -0800 Message-ID: From: Chris Hopps To: "'prz@xebeo.com'" Cc: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 04:31:51 -0800 I'll be there and be willing to field questions and comments regarding the new operational "site-local" section of the ipv6 draft, although I'd prefer they go to the list, first. Chris. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Przygienda [mailto:prz@xebeo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:04 AM To: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... pretty scarse so far albeit we have plenty drafts & updates between last time and now. A possible conclusion would be that most ISIS working group attendants are boondogles that don't go to blue-collar places like Atlanta ;-) Duration Topic Pres 10min Administrativa Tony P. 10min M-ISIS update Tony P. thanks -- tony _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 08:09:04 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16825 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5D58v08542; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:05:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5D2xv08484 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:02:59 -0500 Received: from xover.netplane.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16529 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:00:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by XOVER.dedham.mindspeed.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B0HPYDY>; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:02:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Manral, Vishwas" To: "'Chris Hopps'" , "'prz@xebeo.com'" Cc: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:05:02 -0500 Hi Chris, I do not know much about site-local address, however a few points: - 1. Site-locals would need to be restricted only in case we have site-locals in connected networks. If site locals are in non-connected networks it would not create a problem. 2. I guess we can also say the same about L2toL1 as L1toL2, in case the L2 domain is mapped to a site. Shouldn't we? 3. Shouldn't we put the discussion in reverse i.e. "Incase the site is mapped to an area an operator should restrict L1 to L2 redistribution of site-local prefix". 4. Besides I think we should also put in the discussion about external reachability info(which would be the same too)? Thanks, Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Chris Hopps [mailto:chopps@allegronetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:02 PM To: 'prz@xebeo.com' Cc: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... I'll be there and be willing to field questions and comments regarding the new operational "site-local" section of the ipv6 draft, although I'd prefer they go to the list, first. Chris. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Przygienda [mailto:prz@xebeo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:04 AM To: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... pretty scarse so far albeit we have plenty drafts & updates between last time and now. A possible conclusion would be that most ISIS working group attendants are boondogles that don't go to blue-collar places like Atlanta ;-) Duration Topic Pres 10min Administrativa Tony P. 10min M-ISIS update Tony P. thanks -- tony _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 22:10:25 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07453 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA636uv30130; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:06:56 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA632uv30026 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:02:56 -0500 Received: from xmxpita.excite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07066 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:00:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 06CFD3CFF; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:02:46 -0500 (EST) To: isis-wg@ietf.org Received: from [63.104.212.252] by xprdmailfe4.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 22:02:46 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = b4f718530cf8af0dd8df25e0425ffee0 Reply-To: dgoodspe@excite.com From: "Don Goodspeed" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: dgoodspe@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20021106030246.06CFD3CFF@xmxpita.excite.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isis-wg] IETF/JTC draft - assignment of sub-TLVs Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:02:46 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex, Who will be responsible for the assigment and maintaining of sub-TLVs? Should this be mentioned? -don _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 22:15:58 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07780 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA63CYv30868; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:12:34 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA638Zv30749 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:08:35 -0500 Received: from xmxpita.excite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07319 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:05:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id C75E23D11; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:08:24 -0500 (EST) To: isis-wg@ietf.org Received: from [63.104.212.252] by xprdmailfe4.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 22:08:24 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = b4f718530cf8af0dd8df25e0425ffee0 Reply-To: dgoodspe@excite.com From: "Don Goodspeed" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: dgoodspe@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20021106030824.C75E23D11@xmxpita.excite.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:08:24 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, Since sub-TLVs could be used by non-IETF uses (primarily the LSP Frags draft), general formatting and support for sub-TLVs needs to be documented outside of an IETF-specific draft (ISIS-TE). -don _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 22:20:13 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08019 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:20:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA63H8v31113; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:17:08 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA63Bnv30846 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:11:49 -0500 Received: from xmxpita.excite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07395 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:09:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 237653D1E; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:11:39 -0500 (EST) To: isis-wg@ietf.org Received: from [63.104.212.252] by xprdmailfe4.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 22:11:39 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = b4f718530cf8af0dd8df25e0425ffee0 Reply-To: dgoodspe@excite.com From: "Don Goodspeed" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: dgoodspe@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20021106031139.237653D1E@xmxpita.excite.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isis-wg] ext-lsp-frags-02 draft: support for overload bit per level Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:11:39 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, In draft-ietf-isis-ext-lsp-frags-02, in section 3.1.4 "Overload Bit", since the overload bit is set per-level, shouldn't this be mentioned in this section? -don _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 5 23:32:33 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10239 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:32:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA64Skv02701; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:28:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA64ORv02577 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:24:27 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10050 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 23:21:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189Hji-0003Wy-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 20:24:14 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <755323204.20021105202403@psg.com> To: Jeff Parker CC: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:24:03 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeff, Sorry for the long delay. See comments below, pls. >> > a) Framework of PDU formats, including standard TLVs >> >> >>> Standard means? Things defined in 10589...? >> >> You got it right, "standard" here and below is alias to "as specified >> in (ISO/IEC 10589)" above. I'll see how this might be clarified. > I'll look for the clarification Would "specified" instead of "standard" be good enough? >> > c) Adjacency state machine and formation logic >> >> > We have recently played in these waters >> > when adding the clause about matching IP interface >> > addresses on either side. >> >> I thought about this when working on the text. I think this can be >> abstracted as a supplementary PDU filtering mechanism, which is >> definitely Internet-specific. > "PDU filtering mechanisms"? yes, this could be positioned as an *additional* core mechanism as opposed to a modification of the existing adjacency formation logic. > In Drama, I believe this is > called "Deus ex Machina". I think we should call a spade > a spade, and retain some control over adjacency formation > in IP networks. I think this would be a stretch. The idea was to avoid taking over control on the core protocol mechanisms as mush as possible and adjacency formation is one of them... Do we have a generic requirement that would justify going that far? > Consider the missing ISH in adjacency formation. I claim > the filtering concept doesn't apply, as we want to say it is > acceptable to form an adjacency in the absence of the ISH. > No amount of filtering will restore something that isn't > there. Help me understand why JTC1 would be motivated to > drop the requirement for the ISH. This is a different case. This one could be grandfathered by 2.2 c) >> >>> The recent draft on flooding over multiple links applies >> This one will have to go to ISO, unless I'm mistaken that it >> is not at all Internet-specific ;) >> >>> What about "P2P over LANs"? >> Same as above. Nothing Internet-specific here. > Agreed on both. So when we have a new idea, we > write it up/implement it, and issue an Informational > RFC and wait for JTC1 to rule on it. Is that > enough cover to maintain the rate of inovation? This is almost what is already happening now, except that I don't think anyone is actually submitting anything to JTC1. The fast track procedure is supposed to make things faster compared to what would happen to a regular submission brought in by a country. >> Yes, MPLS would be included. Whether we like it or not, it's our baby >> and could be considered as another forwarding technique, complementary >> to the destination-based. If/when we come up with the next gen routing >> & addressing architecture, the clause will allow us to put related >> extensions to STD track as well. > I agree MPLS is our baby. My question is, "Does the > language above cover it?" I think so. The text explicitly says "MPLS" > I guess I am being legalistic, > but I find the phrase at once too broad (whatever we want > to do in the future might include re-defining 10589) and > too restrictive (routing technology may rule out MPLS). > If good fences make good neighbors, it is important that > we make the fence correct. I think we're good enough here. By talking about "routing" technologies, we identify the scope of applications for IS-IS in the IETF (e.g., DNS over IS-IS won't fly). We then go ahead and enumerate some specific technologies to make sure they (and their derivatives) are included, but, of course, we can't really come up with the exhaustive list of future topics... I'd open to suggestions if you have some specific text improvements in mind, but if not, again, I think we're good. Thanks. Alex _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 00:13:39 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11028 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:13:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA65Afv05178; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:10:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA656Ov04477 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:06:24 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10822 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189IOL-0007LC-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:06:13 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1267842106.20021105210602@psg.com> To: Tony Przygienda CC: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... In-Reply-To: <3DC7898C.1070407@xebeo.com> References: <3DC7898C.1070407@xebeo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:06:02 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tony, Please add a slot (20m would be good) for the IETF/JTC1 discussion. Thanks! -- Alex Tuesday, November 05, 2002, 1:04:12 AM, Tony Przygienda wrote: > pretty scarse so far albeit we have plenty drafts & updates between last > time and now. > A possible conclusion would be that most ISIS working group attendants > are boondogles > that don't go to blue-collar places like Atlanta ;-) > Duration Topic Pres > 10min Administrativa Tony P. > 10min M-ISIS update Tony P. > thanks > -- tony > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 00:17:29 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11146 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA65EXv05333; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:14:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA658iv05111 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:08:44 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10883 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189IQb-0007Sj-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:08:33 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1897981737.20021105210822@psg.com> To: "Don Goodspeed" CC: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IETF/JTC draft - assignment of sub-TLVs In-Reply-To: <20021106030246.06CFD3CFF@xmxpita.excite.com> References: <20021106030246.06CFD3CFF@xmxpita.excite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:08:22 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don, > Who will be responsible for the assigment and maintaining of > sub-TLVs? Should this be mentioned? The following section should address this issue: > 3.2.2 IETF-specific Registries > > IETF MAY request IANA to maintain IS-IS-related registries if those > are required to maintain name spaces internal to Internet-specific > IS-IS extensions. Documents introducing the new namespace (such as Sub-TLV sub-types) should have an IANA Considerations section requesting IANA to create and maintain a registry and provide guidelines for allocation. Does this sound reasonable? Alex _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 00:25:32 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11485 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:25:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA65Mhv05712; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:22:43 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA65Idv05547 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:18:39 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA11116 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189Ia8-0008K4-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 21:18:24 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <298572646.20021105211812@psg.com> To: "Don Goodspeed" CC: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE In-Reply-To: <20021106030824.C75E23D11@xmxpita.excite.com> References: <20021106030824.C75E23D11@xmxpita.excite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:18:12 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don, > Since sub-TLVs could be used by non-IETF uses (primarily the LSP > Frags draft), general formatting and support for sub-TLVs needs > to be documented outside of an IETF-specific draft (ISIS-TE). Wouldn't it be better to push ISIS-TE to STD tracks? Then submissions to JTC1 could reference it with no problem. Unless you had another problem in mind (my brain is overloaded and doesn't work well these days, I have to admit.) Alex _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 01:53:21 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12945 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:53:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA66oIv10434; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:50:18 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA66jqv10305 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:45:52 -0500 Received: from prattle.redback.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA12826 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:43:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from redback.com (yoo-hoo.redback.com [155.53.12.43]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989B2CAB6A; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:45:41 -0800 (PST) To: "'Chris Hopps'" Cc: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) In-reply-to: Mail from "Manral, Vishwas" dated Tue, 05 Nov 2002 08:05:02 EST From: Naiming Shen Message-Id: <20021106064541.989B2CAB6A@prattle.redback.com> Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 22:45:41 -0800 Chris, ] ] I'll be there and be willing to field questions and comments regarding the ] new operational "site-local" section of the ipv6 draft, although I'd prefer ] they go to the list, first. ] ] Chris. I would think its not good to put "site-local" in that draft, maybe because i don't understand that at all;-) It's perfect for "future study". My feeling of ipv6 "site-local" is that, it has little to do with our current area/level or domain in the "old" IGPs. We can have the following cases: - a router in a area attached to a site - a router in a area attached to multiple sites - a site can span across areas/levels(but only a subset of the domain) So the routing of a "site-local" address is not something defined in our 'old' IGPs. We will have very complicated things to handle, for example: - if we have a router with site-A on intf-A, site-B on intf-B, and rest of the intfs have no site defined. when it receives a LSP from intf-A with site-A's "site-local" addresses, what should the router do? should it only flood it into site-A only intfs, or site-A plus the non-sited interfaces? definitely not into the site-B interfaces. - if we need to flood it differently than the "normal" routes, then it should be contained in separate site-related LSPs. - if the level-1 interface and level-2 interface belong to the same site, does the site requirement overwrites the level rules in IGP, or still observes the level boundary? i assume it should follow the IGP level/area rules. but is there anyting special needed for site-local address leaking(or which site can be leaked over)? - if the router receives the same "site-local" addresses from both site-A intf, and site-B intf, how should this route(s) be installed? this is similar to connecting to VPNs each with private addresses, so do we need two "vrf'(srf) tables? loadshare among them does not sound correct even with equal costs. - can a non-site intf inbound packets being forwarded into a site-local intf? which site to pick? Or we can declare we don't want to get into this mess, "site-local" address can only be used in "vpn" sense like our 10/8 case. multiple "sites" can be tunneled over the global backbone. then there is nothing special about them. then a router can not be attached to multiple "sites"(or each site has to use non-overlapping site-local address space); an area/level can only belong to one site, if route-leaking is allowed, then the entire domain can only belong to one site. in that sense, the "site-local" is just like 10/8 address space, only larger. but we don't seem to have a need to document the 10/8 in IGPs. I probably missed something... cheers. - Naiming _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 03:21:09 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08765 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA68HZv24547; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:17:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA68Eov24420 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:14:50 -0500 Received: from smtp.cwnt.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08504 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:12:08 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] ext-lsp-frags-02 draft: support for overload bit per level X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] ext-lsp-frags-02 draft: support for overload bit per level Thread-Index: AcKFQ3ygkffwdXnnQAaR53pfA8q6ggAKCHEw From: "Amir Hermelin" To: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id gA68Eov24421 Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:14:22 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Don, this is a correct observation, and relates not only to the overload bit. Instead of going into details regarding levels in this and other sections, thus lengthening the document needlessly, we prefered to mention in section 1.3 that the operation mode is set on a per-level and area basis, hence inducing no changes to the normal protocol guidelines for levels. -- Amir Hermelin < mailto:amir@cwnt.com> Charlotte's Web Networks Inc. < http://www.cwnt.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: Don Goodspeed [mailto:dgoodspe@excite.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:12 AM >To: isis-wg@ietf.org >Subject: [Isis-wg] ext-lsp-frags-02 draft: support for >overload bit per level > > > >All, > >In draft-ietf-isis-ext-lsp-frags-02, in section 3.1.4 "Overload Bit", >since the overload bit is set per-level, shouldn't this be mentioned >in this section? > >-don > >_______________________________________________ >Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com >The most personalized portal on the Web! >_______________________________________________ >Isis-wg mailing list >Isis-wg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 03:29:47 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08947 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:29:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA68Nqv24955; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:23:52 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA68Lfv24881 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:21:41 -0500 Received: from smtp.cwnt.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA08734 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:18:58 -0500 (EST) content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... Thread-Index: AcKEq9T9V6JHhF42S82jeqi+qUzOXwAwVr8Q From: "Amir Hermelin" To: Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id gA68Lgv24882 Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:21:16 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Tony, I can talk 5min about the status of draft-ietf-isis-ext-lsp-frags-02.txt, and what's holding it back in the RFC-ed queue. This might or might not generate an action item for the TE draft, so reserve an extra 5min (not that we're short of time...) -- Amir Hermelin < mailto:amir@cwnt.com> Charlotte's Web Networks Inc. < http://www.cwnt.com> >-----Original Message----- >From: Tony Przygienda [mailto:prz@xebeo.com] >Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:04 AM >To: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' >Subject: [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... > > >pretty scarse so far albeit we have plenty drafts & updates >between last >time and now. >A possible conclusion would be that most ISIS working group attendants >are boondogles >that don't go to blue-collar places like Atlanta ;-) > >Duration Topic Pres > >10min Administrativa Tony P. >10min M-ISIS update Tony P. > > > thanks > > -- tony > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Isis-wg mailing list >Isis-wg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 04:24:10 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA09949 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:24:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA69Jfv28900; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:19:42 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA69G3v28801 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:16:03 -0500 Received: from lxmail.xebeo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id EAA09857 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:13:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11083 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 09:15:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO xebeo.com) (192.168.2.180) by lxmail.xebeo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 09:15:48 -0000 Message-ID: <3DC8DD9F.4050900@xebeo.com> From: Tony Przygienda Reply-To: prz@xebeo.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dgoodspe@excite.com CC: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE References: <20021106030824.C75E23D11@xmxpita.excite.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:15:11 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don Goodspeed wrote: >All, > >Since sub-TLVs could be used by non-IETF uses (primarily the LSP >Frags draft), general formatting and support for sub-TLVs needs >to be documented outside of an IETF-specific draft (ISIS-TE). > Nonsense, with this kind of argumentation we can make almost everything go into infinite recursion and never get any drafts published at all. thanks --- tony _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 04:55:20 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10450 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:55:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA69npv30650; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:49:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA69lTv30573 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:47:29 -0500 Received: from net4u.net4u.ch (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA10311 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 04:44:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from net4u.ch (zux006-008-226.adsl.green.ch [81.6.8.226]) by net4u.net4u.ch (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA69lGh19963 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:47:16 +0100 Message-ID: <3DC8E4F4.9080403@net4u.ch> From: Tony Przygienda Reply-To: prz@net4u.ch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isis-wg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isis-wg] agenda ... Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:46:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Duration Topic Pres ================================================ 10min Administrativa Tony P. 10min Update LSP Frags Amir 10min M-ISIS update Tony P. 10min IETF/JTC1 Alex thanks -- tony _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 06:42:04 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13407 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:42:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Bcov04844; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:38:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6BWov03915 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:32:50 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12369; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:30:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211061130.GAA12369@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-restart-02.txt Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 06:30:19 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF. Title : Restart signaling for IS-IS Author(s) : M. Shand Filename : draft-ietf-isis-restart-02.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2002-11-5 The IS-IS routing protocol (RFC 1142 [2], ISO/IEC 10589 [3]) is a link state intra-domain routing protocol. Normally, when an IS-IS router is re-started, the neighboring routers detect the restart event and cycle their adjacencies with the restarting router through the down state. This is necessary in order to invoke the protocol mechanisms to ensure correct re-synchronization of the LSP database. However, the cycling of the adjacency state causes the neighbors to regenerate their LSPs describing the adjacency concerned. This in turn causes temporary disruption of routes passing through the restarting router. In certain scenarios such temporary disruption of the routes is highly undesirable. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-restart-02.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-isis-restart-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-restart-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-5193311.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-restart-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-isis-restart-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-5193311.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 06:59:02 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14121 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:59:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Bttv05885; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:55:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Brbv05817 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:53:37 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13811; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:51:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211061151.GAA13811@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 06:51:05 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF. Title : Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using IS-IS Author(s) : J. Parker Filename : draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2002-11-4 In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut This document discusses a number of differences between the IS-IS protocol as described in ISO 10589 [1] the protocol as it is deployed today. These differences are discussed as a service to those implementing, testing, and deploying the IS-IS Protocol. A companion document discusses differences between the protocol described in RFC 1195 [3] for routing IP traffic. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172218.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172218.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 07:01:02 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14227 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Bvfv06034; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:57:41 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Brgv05826 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:53:42 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13826; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:51:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211061151.GAA13826@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 06:51:10 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF. Title : Routing IPv6 with IS-IS Author(s) : C. Hopps Filename : draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2002-11-4 This draft specifies a method for exchanging IPv6 routing information using the IS-IS routing protocol. The described method utilizes 2 new TLVs, a reachability TLV and an interface address TLV to distribute the necessary IPv6 information throughout a routing domain. Using this method one can route IPv6 along with IPv4 and OSI using a single intra-domain routing protocol. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172232.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-11-4172232.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 11:25:35 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00163 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:25:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6GLRv24965; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:21:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6GItv24837 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:18:55 -0500 Received: from gnat.inet.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29773 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:16:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D3267103; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:39:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546) Cc: "'Chris Hopps'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" To: Naiming Shen From: RJ Atkinson In-Reply-To: <20021106064541.989B2CAB6A@prattle.redback.com> Message-Id: <6ED3814E-F1A3-11D6-9573-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:18:49 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One would be prudent to chat with the chairs of the IPv6 Ops WG before putting "IPv6 site-local" into any draft. Conversations with Itojun indicate there are a number of unresolved issues, including deployment/operations issues. That aspect of IPv6 seems less stable than most. Ran _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 11:37:56 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00724 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6GYpv25795; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:34:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6GWDv25706 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:32:13 -0500 Received: from mx3.tellabs.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00396 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailw02.hq.tellabs.com (mailw02.lisle.tellabs.com [172.23.207.12]) by mx3.tellabs.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.1-GA) with ESMTP id BBH46726; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:32:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from tellabs.com (dhcp-172-23-111-21.lisle.tellabs.com [172.23.111.21]) by mailw02.hq.tellabs.com with ESMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/8.7.1) id KAA03686; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:32:08 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3DC943FF.D26CCB4F@tellabs.com> From: Jonathan Sadler Reply-To: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Zinin CC: Jeff Parker , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mirapoint-Sig: mx3.tellabs.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:31:59 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Alex - Alex Zinin wrote: > >> Yes, MPLS would be included. Whether we like it or not, it's our baby > >> and could be considered as another forwarding technique, complementary > >> to the destination-based. If/when we come up with the next gen routing > >> & addressing architecture, the clause will allow us to put related > >> extensions to STD track as well. > > > I agree MPLS is our baby. My question is, "Does the > > language above cover it?" > > I think so. The text explicitly says "MPLS" How would GMPLS be handled? Is it included in the MPLS statement? Or is it seen as an effort outside of the IETF? Jonathan Sadler ============================================================ The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ============================================================ _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 11:59:42 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01644 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:59:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Gt3v27471; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:55:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Gqpv27355 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500 Received: from tahoe.sj.allegronetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01174 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by tahoe.allegronetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:52:34 -0800 Message-ID: From: Chris Hopps To: "'RJ Atkinson'" , "'Naiming Shen'" Cc: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:52:33 -0800 I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks, although I haven't explicitly run the text by them. The critical point is the initial sentence of the section: "7. Site-local Addressing No protocol modifications are made to support IPv6 site-local addressing." I'm a little confused as to the reaction to this section given that first sentence. The only thing I do with the other 2 sentences is to state how an operator can utilize standard IS-IS distribution rules to allow for given site-local distribution (scope). I'm not trying to manipulate or change or interpret the meaning of site-local addresses at all. This is on purpose. For the record folks, this draft has been implemented by at least 3 major vendors and has been around, basically unchanged, for over 2 years. Thanks, Chris. -----Original Message----- From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:19 AM To: Naiming Shen Cc: 'Chris Hopps'; 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) One would be prudent to chat with the chairs of the IPv6 Ops WG before putting "IPv6 site-local" into any draft. Conversations with Itojun indicate there are a number of unresolved issues, including deployment/operations issues. That aspect of IPv6 seems less stable than most. Ran _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 12:26:28 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03029 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6HMNv29782; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:22:24 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6HJlv29657 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:19:47 -0500 Received: from xmxpita.excite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02554 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:17:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 2B2EB133CB; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:19:42 -0500 (EST) To: amir@cwnt.com, isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] ext-lsp-frags-02 draft: support for overload bit per level Received: from [165.121.193.207] by xprdmailfe5.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:19:42 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = 93c2645f0db9ccf275673c6ca2294da8 Reply-To: dgoodspe@excite.com From: "Don Goodspeed" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: dgoodspe@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20021106171942.2B2EB133CB@xmxpita.excite.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:19:42 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Amir, Thanks for the pointer. After re-reading 1.3, it does seem to cover this case. Thanks, Don --- On Wed 11/06, Amir Hermelin wrote: From: Amir Hermelin [mailto: amir@cwnt.com] To: dgoodspe@excite.com, isis-wg@ietf.org Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:14:22 +0200 Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] ext-lsp-frags-02 draft: support for overload bit per level > Don, > this is a correct observation, and relates not only to the overload bit. > Instead of going into details regarding levels in this and other sections, > thus lengthening the document needlessly, we prefered to mention in section > 1.3 that the operation mode is set on a per-level and area basis, hence > inducing no changes to the normal protocol guidelines for levels. > > -- > Amir Hermelin > Charlotte's Web Networks Inc. > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Don Goodspeed [mailto:dgoodspe@excite.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:12 AM > >To: isis-wg@ietf.org > >Subject: [Isis-wg] ext-lsp-frags-02 draft: support for > >overload bit per level > > > > > > > >All, > > > >In draft-ietf-isis-ext-lsp-frags-02, in section 3.1.4 "Overload > Bit", > >since the overload bit is set per-level, shouldn't this be mentioned > >in this section? > > > >-don > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > >The most personalized portal on the Web! > >_______________________________________________ > >Isis-wg mailing list > >Isis-wg@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 12:28:27 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03096 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:28:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6HOlv29866; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:24:47 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6HMJv29772 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:22:19 -0500 Received: from xmxpita.excite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02779 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:19:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 09D80133D6; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:22:14 -0500 (EST) To: zinin@psg.com Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IETF/JTC draft - assignment of sub-TLVs Received: from [165.121.193.207] by xprdmailfe5.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:22:14 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = 93c2645f0db9ccf275673c6ca2294da8 Reply-To: dgoodspe@excite.com From: "Don Goodspeed" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: dgoodspe@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20021106172214.09D80133D6@xmxpita.excite.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:22:14 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex, That text is much clearer. Thanks, Don --- On Wed 11/06, Alex Zinin wrote: From: Alex Zinin [mailto: zinin@psg.com] To: dgoodspe@excite.com Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:08:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IETF/JTC draft - assignment of sub-TLVs > Don, > > > Who will be responsible for the assigment and maintaining of > > sub-TLVs? Should this be mentioned? > > The following section should address this issue: > > > 3.2.2 IETF-specific Registries > > > > IETF MAY request IANA to maintain IS-IS-related registries if > those > > are required to maintain name spaces internal to > Internet-specific > > IS-IS extensions. > > Documents introducing the new namespace (such as Sub-TLV sub-types) > should have an IANA Considerations section requesting IANA to > create and maintain a registry and provide guidelines for allocation. > > Does this sound reasonable? > > Alex > > > _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 13:07:29 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04771 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:07:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6I43v32489; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:04:03 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6I1Fv32271 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:01:15 -0500 Received: from gnat.inet.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04384 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:58:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from extremenetworks.com (unknown [10.18.3.100]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3DD67103; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:21:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546) Cc: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" To: Chris Hopps From: RJ Atkinson In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:01:09 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 11:52 America/Montreal, Chris Hopps wrote: > I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks, WHICH IPv6 folks ? There are at least 2 sets to choose from. IPng WG has VERY different perspective on site-locals than IPv6 OPS WG, the latter contains more folks who run real networks (as near as I can tell). Ran _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 13:25:11 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05622 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:25:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6ILrv01383; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:21:53 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6IJJv01248 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:19:19 -0500 Received: from xmxpita.excite.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05139 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:16:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 2DAD2133F5; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:19:13 -0500 (EST) To: zinin@psg.com Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE Received: from [165.121.193.207] by xprdmailfe5.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:19:13 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = 93c2645f0db9ccf275673c6ca2294da8 Reply-To: dgoodspe@excite.com From: "Don Goodspeed" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: dgoodspe@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org Message-Id: <20021106181913.2DAD2133F5@xmxpita.excite.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:19:13 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex, I was operating under the assumptions from the joint IETF/JTC1 draft. If ISIS-TE is pushed to STD, can EXT-LSP-FRAGS refer to it for the definition of sub-TLVs? Isn't EXT-LSP-FRAGS worded so it can be submitted to JTC1 fast-track? Then, wouldn't JTC1 have issues with it referring to an IETF STD document for the definition of sub-TLVs? -don --- On Wed 11/06, Alex Zinin wrote: From: Alex Zinin [mailto: zinin@psg.com] To: dgoodspe@excite.com Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:18:12 -0800 Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE > Don, > > > Since sub-TLVs could be used by non-IETF uses (primarily the LSP > > Frags draft), general formatting and support for sub-TLVs needs > > to be documented outside of an IETF-specific draft (ISIS-TE). > > Wouldn't it be better to push ISIS-TE to STD tracks? Then submissions > to JTC1 could reference it with no problem. Unless you had another > problem in mind (my brain is overloaded and doesn't work well these > days, I have to admit.) > > Alex > > > _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 16:05:51 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12423 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:05:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6L2Gv11642; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:02:16 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6KxMv11468 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:59:22 -0500 Received: from sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11997 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:56:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com [171.71.163.34]) by sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gA6KwTxF006431; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:58:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ginsberg-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-163-217.cisco.com [128.107.163.217]) by mira-sjc5-a.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.0-GA) with ESMTP id ACC15662; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:58:35 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021106124758.00b3b830@mira-sjc5-3.cisco.com> X-Sender: ginsberg@mira-sjc5-3.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 To: Alex Zinin From: Les Ginsberg Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational Cc: Jeff Parker , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" In-Reply-To: <755323204.20021105202403@psg.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:58:35 -0800 First, let me offer some public praise to Alex for taking on this issue and making some real progress. I am pleased to see this and believe that the text of the draft is largely sensible. I do believe, however, that there are significant issues on "both sides of the aisle". 1)I would love to have some substantive input from the ISO side that would explain who is going to handle the increased workload associated with IETF contributions to IS-IS. The unfortunate story of the past few years has been that ISO has had difficulty living up to its commitments associated with the Version 2 draft of ISO 10589. As a result it has progressed very slowly and seems to currently be languishing in a black hole for no apparent reason. Given that this work was largely non-controversial and therefore did not require extensive review/discussion, it makes me wonder how ISO realistically expects to take on IETF contributions, whatever the "speed" of the track, which are likely to require more intensive review/discussion if only to make sure that there is consistency between the ISO version and the IETF submission. What within ISO is about to change as regards IS-IS that will provide additional resources?? 2)The lack of IS-IS expert participation within ISO over the last few years has compromised the member country TAGs ability to vote in an educated manner on IS-IS related issues (e.g. ISO 10589 1998 draft!!). I see nothing which makes me think IS-IS experts will be more active directly in ISO TAGs in the future, so I am wondering if we could add some wording to the draft which states that when the IETF reviews JTC1/SC6 IS-IS related work (under draft section 3.3.4) that the recommendations of the IETF be forwarded to all member country TAGs to be used as input to their voting decision. This would at least provide them with some expert opinion to use a basis for a vote. 3)When the IETF submits an info RFC to JTC1 for fast track approval (under 3.3.2) I am wondering what form the corresponding ISO document is expected to take? Are we thinking that the substance of the RFC will be incorporated into a revised version of ISO 10589? Either as a DR or a TC? Or will there simply be a list of RFCs which are considered formally approved by ISO? While the form may differ for each case, the work involved to transform the RFC into ISO form while preserving consistency with the original may well be considerable. Which leads me to... 4)I would love to see a "show of hands" as to how many of the authors of drafts/RFCs which fall into the category of extensions required to be submitted to ISO under Section 3.1 are ready and willing to commit to the work required to: a)Meet the requirements associated with IETF standards track RFCs b)Transform the extension into an ISO approved form and shepherd the document through the ISO approval process Without an overwhelming majority commitment to this work, the agreement defined in the draft will not be worth much. As an aid to the "show of hands" I have tried to make a list of current work which I believe falls into the category of extensions requiring ISO approval. I am sure there may be differences of opinion on how accurate my list is, but I believe it is not too far off the mark and certainly serves to demonstrate the point that we must be committed to do some real work to make this agreement meaningful, and if we are not, then why bother. IS-IS Automatic Encapsulation Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using IS-IS TLV for Proprietary Use Restart signaling for ISIS Extending the Number of IS-IS LSP Fragments Beyond the 256 Limit Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments (RFC 1195) IS-IS Mesh Groups (RFC 2973) Optional Checksums in ISIS (RFC 3358) Three-Way Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point Adjacencies (RFC 3373) 6)As to how we evaluate whether IETF work falls inside or outside the "core IS-IS mechanisms" definition, it seems to me that the litmus test should(must?) be "Would implementations which are strictly conformant to ISO 10589 have interoperability problems with implementations using the extension?" If the answer is YES then we have mucked with the core. By way of example, certainly the extensions used for adjacency formation have been demonstrated to cause interoperability issues with strict ISO 10589 implementations so it seems we have no choice but to submit these to ISO. Les _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 18:57:29 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17481 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:57:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Npav21960; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:53:22 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA6Nouv21944 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:50:56 -0500 Received: from tahoe.sj.allegronetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17202 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:48:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by tahoe.allegronetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:50:38 -0800 Message-ID: From: Chris Hopps To: "'RJ Atkinson'" Cc: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:50:37 -0800 A couple different hallway conversations occurred mostly with Margaret Wasserman, Alex, Bill and I. Basically I was asked whether I had dealt with site-locals, and multi-sites. I said no, and I didn't think we should retro-fit routing protocols to handle these newer concepts. The protocols can be deployed in such a way as to deal with them if need be. And thus you have my "no modification" text. I haven't followed the reported flame-fest that occurred over site-locals; however, it is my understanding that the "more operations oriented" people will find nothing wrong with my text. Thanks, Chris. -----Original Message----- From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:01 AM To: Chris Hopps Cc: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 11:52 America/Montreal, Chris Hopps wrote: > I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks, WHICH IPv6 folks ? There are at least 2 sets to choose from. IPng WG has VERY different perspective on site-locals than IPv6 OPS WG, the latter contains more folks who run real networks (as near as I can tell). Ran _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 20:04:12 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA18880 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:04:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA70xLv25320; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:01:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA70t1v25225 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:55:01 -0500 Received: from titanium.ekay.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18625 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=titanium.ekay.org) by titanium.ekay.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 189axu-0005Hk-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:56:10 -0800 Message-ID: <874rau42qd.wl@titanium.ekay.org> From: Noguchi Kay To: isis-wg@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.8.1 (Something) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Isis-wg] isisIPRAEntry index Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:56:10 -0800 Hi Jeff, isisIPRAEntry has a five index shown below. My question is that do we have to have isisIPRAIndex at all? I think IP network address triplet and isisIPRASourceType specifies one entry like below. What do you think? isisIPRAEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IsisIPRAEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Each entry defines an IP Reachable Address to a network, subnetwork or host." INDEX { isisSysInstance, isisIPRADestType, isisIPRADest, isisIPRADestPrefixLen, isisIPRASourceType } ::= { isisIPRATable 1 } kay _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 20:36:41 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19311 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:36:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA71Vqv26926; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:33:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA71TPv26865 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:29:25 -0500 Received: from titanium.ekay.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19156 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:26:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=titanium.ekay.org) by titanium.ekay.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 189bVE-00060q-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:30:36 -0800 Message-ID: <87znsm2mkj.wl@titanium.ekay.org> From: Noguchi Kay To: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] isisIPRAEntry index In-Reply-To: <874rau42qd.wl@titanium.ekay.org> References: <874rau42qd.wl@titanium.ekay.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.8.1 (Something) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:30:36 -0800 Or even it's better to have isisIPRASourceType before isisIPRADestType for parsing purposes with GetNext like below. What do you think, Jeff? isisIPRAEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX IsisIPRAEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Each entry defines an IP Reachable Address to a network, subnetwork or host." INDEX { isisSysInstance, isisIPRASourceType, isisIPRADestType, isisIPRADest, isisIPRADestPrefixLen } ::= { isisIPRATable 1 } kay _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 21:06:29 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA19848 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:06:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA721Dv28422; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:02:59 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA71wgv28314 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:58:42 -0500 Received: from prattle.redback.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19667 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:56:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from redback.com (yoo-hoo.redback.com [155.53.12.43]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F39A1DCC7A; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:58:33 -0800 (PST) To: Chris Hopps Cc: "'RJ Atkinson'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) In-reply-to: Mail from Chris Hopps dated Wed, 06 Nov 2002 15:50:37 PST From: Naiming Shen Message-Id: <20021107015833.7F39A1DCC7A@prattle.redback.com> Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:58:33 -0800 I was in the last ietf, and get the feeling people are worried about no one really thinking about site-local issues and how to fit this into the routing area. But just to mention it in a draft does not solve problems. This also applys to ipv6 link-local addresses, ipv6 anycast addresses, etc. We probably should not have sections for each type of those ipv6 addresses, then saying nothing really need changing to them. For the current draft, they are all just "IPV6" addresses. If we think just mentioning them will ease the concern on this part, then I'm fine also. ] A couple different hallway conversations occurred mostly with Margaret ] Wasserman, Alex, Bill and I. ] ] Basically I was asked whether I had dealt with site-locals, and multi-sites. ] I said no, and I didn't think we should retro-fit routing protocols to ] handle these newer concepts. The protocols can be deployed in such a way as ] to deal with them if need be. ] ] And thus you have my "no modification" text. I haven't followed the reported ] flame-fest that occurred over site-locals; however, it is my understanding ] that the "more operations oriented" people will find nothing wrong with my ] text. ] ] Thanks, ] Chris. ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] ] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:01 AM ] To: Chris Hopps ] Cc: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' ] Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) ] ] ] ] On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 11:52 America/Montreal, Chris Hopps wrote: ] > I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks, ] ] WHICH IPv6 folks ? There are at least 2 sets to choose from. ] IPng WG has VERY different perspective on site-locals than IPv6 OPS WG, ] the latter contains more folks who run real networks (as near as I can ] tell). ] ] Ran ] _______________________________________________ ] Isis-wg mailing list ] Isis-wg@ietf.org ] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg - Naiming _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 21:27:57 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20305 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA72Mrv29905; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:24:38 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA72KEv29815 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:20:14 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20133 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:17:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189cH4-000CAR-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:20:02 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <14384261241.20021106181941@psg.com> To: Jonathan Sadler CC: Jeff Parker , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational In-Reply-To: <3DC943FF.D26CCB4F@tellabs.com> References: <3DC943FF.D26CCB4F@tellabs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:19:41 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan, >> I think so. The text explicitly says "MPLS" > How would GMPLS be handled? Is it included in the MPLS statement? Or > is it seen as an effort outside of the IETF? It was definitely within the IETF last time I looked at it :) GMPLS should certainly be included. I thought "MPLS" would cover it, but I can spell it out. Alex _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 21:31:30 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20404 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:31:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA72QQv30042; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:28:11 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA72Kvv29835 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:20:57 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20137 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189cHn-000CHU-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:20:47 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <12784306586.20021106182026@psg.com> To: "Don Goodspeed" CC: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IETF/JTC draft - assignment of sub-TLVs In-Reply-To: <20021106172214.09D80133D6@xmxpita.excite.com> References: <20021106172214.09D80133D6@xmxpita.excite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:20:26 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don, BTW, that section was already in the text. -- Alex Wednesday, November 06, 2002, 9:22:14 AM, Don Goodspeed wrote: > Alex, > That text is much clearer. Thanks, > Don _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 21:48:21 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21230 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:48:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA72dov31170; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:41:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA72bTv31052 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:37:29 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA20696 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:34:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189cXj-000EAz-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:37:15 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <18485293886.20021106183654@psg.com> To: "Don Goodspeed" CC: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE In-Reply-To: <20021106181913.2DAD2133F5@xmxpita.excite.com> References: <20021106181913.2DAD2133F5@xmxpita.excite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:36:54 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don, To make it clear to the readers, I wasn't acting as the AD asking the WG to push the draft to STD at this instance, just discussing. [wg-member] > I was operating under the assumptions from the joint IETF/JTC1 > draft. I didn't know about such thing... or did you mean IETF's submission to JTC1? > If ISIS-TE is pushed to STD, can EXT-LSP-FRAGS refer > to it for the definition of sub-TLVs? Definitely. It actually does (that's why it will have to wait in the rfc-ed queue until ISIS-TE goes through.) > Isn't EXT-LSP-FRAGS > worded so it can be submitted to JTC1 fast-track? I haven't reviewed it with this in mind. > Then, > wouldn't JTC1 have issues with it referring to an IETF STD > document for the definition of sub-TLVs? No. In fact, I think this is the only type of doc JTC1 would have no problem normatively referring to. Alex > -don > --- On Wed 11/06, Alex Zinin wrote: > From: Alex Zinin [mailto: zinin@psg.com] > To: dgoodspe@excite.com > Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org > Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:18:12 -0800 > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sub-TLVs need to be documented outside of ISIS-TE >> Don, >> >> > Since sub-TLVs could be used by non-IETF uses (primarily the LSP >> > Frags draft), general formatting and support for sub-TLVs needs >> > to be documented outside of an IETF-specific draft (ISIS-TE). >> >> Wouldn't it be better to push ISIS-TE to STD tracks? Then submissions >> to JTC1 could reference it with no problem. Unless you had another >> problem in mind (my brain is overloaded and doesn't work well these >> days, I have to admit.) >> >> Alex >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Wed Nov 6 23:27:19 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA23055 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:27:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA74MLv04187; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:24:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA74Jxv04086 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:19:59 -0500 Received: from xover.netplane.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA22933 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by XOVER.dedham.mindspeed.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B0HP7GC>; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:19:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Manral, Vishwas" To: "'Naiming Shen'" , Chris Hopps Cc: "'RJ Atkinson'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:22:03 -0500 Hi, I had asked Margaret a similar question some time back. The reply from her atached below. Thanks, Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:42 PM To: Manral, Vishwas Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local Hi Vishwas, >Do you think we should state how sites should be mapped to a routing domain? Yes. If we are going to use site-local addresses on globally connected networks (which implies site borders), we _will_ have to define this. There are some general rules that we can state -- a site should map to an area, etc. But, we may also need specific changes to the IPv6 versions of the routing protocols to make sure that site- local addresses won't be propagated incorrectly. Margaret -----Original Message----- From: Naiming Shen [mailto:naiming@redback.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:29 AM To: Chris Hopps Cc: 'RJ Atkinson'; 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) I was in the last ietf, and get the feeling people are worried about no one really thinking about site-local issues and how to fit this into the routing area. But just to mention it in a draft does not solve problems. This also applys to ipv6 link-local addresses, ipv6 anycast addresses, etc. We probably should not have sections for each type of those ipv6 addresses, then saying nothing really need changing to them. For the current draft, they are all just "IPV6" addresses. If we think just mentioning them will ease the concern on this part, then I'm fine also. ] A couple different hallway conversations occurred mostly with Margaret ] Wasserman, Alex, Bill and I. ] ] Basically I was asked whether I had dealt with site-locals, and multi-sites. ] I said no, and I didn't think we should retro-fit routing protocols to ] handle these newer concepts. The protocols can be deployed in such a way as ] to deal with them if need be. ] ] And thus you have my "no modification" text. I haven't followed the reported ] flame-fest that occurred over site-locals; however, it is my understanding ] that the "more operations oriented" people will find nothing wrong with my ] text. ] ] Thanks, ] Chris. ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] ] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:01 AM ] To: Chris Hopps ] Cc: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' ] Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) ] ] ] ] On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 11:52 America/Montreal, Chris Hopps wrote: ] > I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks, ] ] WHICH IPv6 folks ? There are at least 2 sets to choose from. ] IPng WG has VERY different perspective on site-locals than IPv6 OPS WG, ] the latter contains more folks who run real networks (as near as I can ] tell). ] ] Ran ] _______________________________________________ ] Isis-wg mailing list ] Isis-wg@ietf.org ] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg - Naiming _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 01:03:45 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA24732 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 01:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA75rUv08460; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 00:55:15 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA75oov08376 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 00:50:50 -0500 Received: from prattle.redback.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24482 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 00:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from redback.com (yoo-hoo.redback.com [155.53.12.43]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C891531CF; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:50:39 -0800 (PST) To: "Manral, Vishwas" Cc: "'Naiming Shen'" , Chris Hopps , "'RJ Atkinson'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) In-reply-to: Mail from "Manral, Vishwas" dated Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:22:03 EST From: Naiming Shen Message-Id: <20021107055039.56C891531CF@prattle.redback.com> Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 21:50:39 -0800 basically, the message was: "we _will_ have to define this". i fail to see how can a "site-local" address be useful. if it is useful, then IPv4 is really the one which needs to have "site-local" addresses in order to further conserve the limited address space. maybe ietf should carve the 10.255/16 block as the IPv4 "site-local" addresses and introduce another layer of routing concept for protocols. ] Hi, ] ] I had asked Margaret a similar question some time back. The reply from her ] atached below. ] ] Thanks, ] Vishwas ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com] ] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:42 PM ] To: Manral, Vishwas ] Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local ] ] ] ] Hi Vishwas, ] ] ] >Do you think we should state how sites should be mapped to a routing ] domain? ] ] Yes. If we are going to use site-local addresses on globally ] connected networks (which implies site borders), we _will_ have ] to define this. ] ] There are some general rules that we can state -- a site should ] map to an area, etc. But, we may also need specific changes to ] the IPv6 versions of the routing protocols to make sure that site- ] local addresses won't be propagated incorrectly. ] ] Margaret ] ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: Naiming Shen [mailto:naiming@redback.com] ] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:29 AM ] To: Chris Hopps ] Cc: 'RJ Atkinson'; 'isis-wg@ietf.org' ] Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) ] ] ] ] I was in the last ietf, and get the feeling people are worried ] about no one really thinking about site-local issues and how to ] fit this into the routing area. But just to mention it in a draft ] does not solve problems. This also applys to ipv6 link-local addresses, ] ipv6 anycast addresses, etc. We probably should not have sections ] for each type of those ipv6 addresses, then saying nothing really ] need changing to them. For the current draft, they are all just ] "IPV6" addresses. If we think just mentioning them will ease the ] concern on this part, then I'm fine also. ] ] ] A couple different hallway conversations occurred mostly with Margaret ] ] Wasserman, Alex, Bill and I. ] ] ] ] Basically I was asked whether I had dealt with site-locals, and ] multi-sites. ] ] I said no, and I didn't think we should retro-fit routing protocols to ] ] handle these newer concepts. The protocols can be deployed in such a way ] as ] ] to deal with them if need be. ] ] ] ] And thus you have my "no modification" text. I haven't followed the ] reported ] ] flame-fest that occurred over site-locals; however, it is my ] understanding ] ] that the "more operations oriented" people will find nothing wrong with ] my ] ] text. ] ] ] ] Thanks, ] ] Chris. ] ] ] ] -----Original Message----- ] ] From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] ] ] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:01 AM ] ] To: Chris Hopps ] ] Cc: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' ] ] Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 11:52 America/Montreal, Chris Hopps wrote: ] ] > I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks, ] ] ] ] WHICH IPv6 folks ? There are at least 2 sets to choose from. ] ] IPng WG has VERY different perspective on site-locals than IPv6 OPS WG, ] ] the latter contains more folks who run real networks (as near as I can ] ] tell). ] ] ] ] Ran ] ] _______________________________________________ ] ] Isis-wg mailing list ] ] Isis-wg@ietf.org ] ] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg ] ] - Naiming ] _______________________________________________ ] Isis-wg mailing list ] Isis-wg@ietf.org ] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg - Naiming _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 01:07:15 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA24792 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 01:07:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7625v08784; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 01:03:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA75xuv08662 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 00:59:56 -0500 Received: from xover.netplane.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24598 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 00:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by XOVER.dedham.mindspeed.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B0HP7JK>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 00:59:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Manral, Vishwas" To: "'Naiming Shen'" Cc: Chris Hopps , "'RJ Atkinson'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 01:01:45 -0500 Hi Naiming, I wouldn't like to start the site local discussion here, there is a very active discussion going on on the IPng list on this topic itself. However one of the advantages I remember reading on the list are for long lived TCP connections/renumbering etc. Thanks, Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Naiming Shen [mailto:naiming@redback.com] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:21 AM To: Manral, Vishwas Cc: 'Naiming Shen'; Chris Hopps; 'RJ Atkinson'; 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) basically, the message was: "we _will_ have to define this". i fail to see how can a "site-local" address be useful. if it is useful, then IPv4 is really the one which needs to have "site-local" addresses in order to further conserve the limited address space. maybe ietf should carve the 10.255/16 block as the IPv4 "site-local" addresses and introduce another layer of routing concept for protocols. ] Hi, ] ] I had asked Margaret a similar question some time back. The reply from her ] atached below. ] ] Thanks, ] Vishwas ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com] ] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:42 PM ] To: Manral, Vishwas ] Subject: RE: Limiting the Use of Site-Local ] ] ] ] Hi Vishwas, ] ] ] >Do you think we should state how sites should be mapped to a routing ] domain? ] ] Yes. If we are going to use site-local addresses on globally ] connected networks (which implies site borders), we _will_ have ] to define this. ] ] There are some general rules that we can state -- a site should ] map to an area, etc. But, we may also need specific changes to ] the IPv6 versions of the routing protocols to make sure that site- ] local addresses won't be propagated incorrectly. ] ] Margaret ] ] ] -----Original Message----- ] From: Naiming Shen [mailto:naiming@redback.com] ] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:29 AM ] To: Chris Hopps ] Cc: 'RJ Atkinson'; 'isis-wg@ietf.org' ] Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) ] ] ] ] I was in the last ietf, and get the feeling people are worried ] about no one really thinking about site-local issues and how to ] fit this into the routing area. But just to mention it in a draft ] does not solve problems. This also applys to ipv6 link-local addresses, ] ipv6 anycast addresses, etc. We probably should not have sections ] for each type of those ipv6 addresses, then saying nothing really ] need changing to them. For the current draft, they are all just ] "IPV6" addresses. If we think just mentioning them will ease the ] concern on this part, then I'm fine also. ] ] ] A couple different hallway conversations occurred mostly with Margaret ] ] Wasserman, Alex, Bill and I. ] ] ] ] Basically I was asked whether I had dealt with site-locals, and ] multi-sites. ] ] I said no, and I didn't think we should retro-fit routing protocols to ] ] handle these newer concepts. The protocols can be deployed in such a way ] as ] ] to deal with them if need be. ] ] ] ] And thus you have my "no modification" text. I haven't followed the ] reported ] ] flame-fest that occurred over site-locals; however, it is my ] understanding ] ] that the "more operations oriented" people will find nothing wrong with ] my ] ] text. ] ] ] ] Thanks, ] ] Chris. ] ] ] ] -----Original Message----- ] ] From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] ] ] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:01 AM ] ] To: Chris Hopps ] ] Cc: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' ] ] Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 11:52 America/Montreal, Chris Hopps wrote: ] ] > I put this section in at the request of the IPv6 folks, ] ] ] ] WHICH IPv6 folks ? There are at least 2 sets to choose from. ] ] IPng WG has VERY different perspective on site-locals than IPv6 OPS WG, ] ] the latter contains more folks who run real networks (as near as I can ] ] tell). ] ] ] ] Ran ] ] _______________________________________________ ] ] Isis-wg mailing list ] ] Isis-wg@ietf.org ] ] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg ] ] - Naiming ] _______________________________________________ ] Isis-wg mailing list ] Isis-wg@ietf.org ] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg - Naiming _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 03:05:26 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06628 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 03:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7800v24761; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 03:01:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA77v3v24603 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:57:03 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06402 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:54:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189hWl-000PvS-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:56:36 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <24104443982.20021106235604@psg.com> To: Les Ginsberg CC: Jeff Parker , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021106124758.00b3b830@mira-sjc5-3.cisco.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021106124758.00b3b830@mira-sjc5-3.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:56:04 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Les, Wednesday, November 06, 2002, 12:58:35 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote: > First, let me offer some public praise to Alex for taking on this > issue and making some real progress. I am pleased to see this and > believe that the text of the draft is largely sensible. I do > believe, however, that there are significant issues on "both sides > of the aisle". Thanks for your positive feedback and detailed comments, please see my answers below. > 1)I would love to have some substantive input from the ISO side that > would explain who is going to handle the increased workload > associated with IETF contributions to IS-IS. The unfortunate story > of the past few years has been that ISO has had difficulty living up > to its commitments associated with the Version 2 draft of ISO 10589. > As a result it has progressed very slowly and seems to currently be > languishing in a black hole for no apparent reason. Given that this > work was largely non-controversial and therefore did not require > extensive review/discussion, it makes me wonder how ISO > realistically expects to take on IETF contributions, whatever the > "speed" of the track, which are likely to require more intensive > review/discussion if only to make sure that there is consistency > between the ISO version and the IETF submission. What within ISO is > about to change as regards IS-IS that will provide additional > resources?? I will take your question to the JTC1/SC6 folks for comments. Meanwhile, I'd like to note that the fast-track process is supposed to be simpler and faster than the one for the regular submissions, but no, I don't have the first hand experience. > 2)The lack of IS-IS expert participation within ISO over the last > few years has compromised the member country TAGs ability to vote in > an educated manner on IS-IS related issues (e.g. ISO 10589 1998 > draft!!). I see nothing which makes me think IS-IS experts will be > more active directly in ISO TAGs in the future, so I am wondering if > we could add some wording to the draft which states that when the > IETF reviews JTC1/SC6 IS-IS related work (under draft section 3.3.4) > that the recommendations of the IETF be forwarded to all member > country TAGs to be used as input to their voting decision. This > would at least provide them with some expert opinion to use a basis > for a vote. This is a very reasonable request, and will take to it JTC1/SC6 guys. In fact, I suspect that as a Category A liaison, we already have the capability to provide our comments to the NBs, but definitely the document would benefit from making this clear. > 3)When the IETF submits an info RFC to JTC1 for fast track approval > (under 3.3.2) I am wondering what form the corresponding ISO > document is expected to take? Are we thinking that the substance of > the RFC will be incorporated into a revised version of ISO 10589? > Either as a DR or a TC? Good question. I can't say for sure if it will be possible to maintain one-to-one correspondence between IETF and JTC1 docs. I will clarify this. > Or will there simply be a list of RFCs which > are considered formally approved by ISO? I don't think this is the case. From reading the JTC1 procedures, it should finally be published as an International Standard spec. > While the form may differ > for each case, the work involved to transform the RFC into ISO form > while preserving consistency with the original may well be > considerable. Which leads me to... Actually, reading the same source, it seems to be a bit better than that: > 13.9 If, after the deliberations of this ballot > resolution group, the requirements of 9.6 are met, > the Project Editor shall prepare the amended DIS > (or DAM) and send it to the SC Secretariat who > shall forward it to the ITTF for publication as an IS. > For its initial publication, the document is not > required to be in ISO/IEC format, but can be > published in the format of the submitting > organization. > 4)I would love to see a "show of hands" as to how many of the authors of > drafts/RFCs which fall > into the category of extensions required to be submitted to ISO under > Section 3.1 are ready and willing > to commit to the work required to: > a)Meet the requirements associated with IETF standards track RFCs FWIW, we're already operating in this mode, i.e., the IESG requests the IETF WG LC for the documents coming from the ISIS WG. > b)Transform the extension into an ISO approved form see my comment above > and shepherd the > document through the > ISO approval process this one will indeed be necessary. As the text of the agreement and JTC1 procedures say, there should be a "Project Editor", who'll be willing to coordinate with JTC1 to get things done. > Without an overwhelming majority commitment to this work, the agreement > defined in the draft will > not be worth much. Sort of. If no one takes an Info RFC to JTC1 for any reason, we will be no worse than today (note the SHOULD in the text). What the agreement does is essentially the following three things: 1. Explicitly clarify what ISIS documents the IETF can put on its STD track (I do believe we should be able to STD'ize Internet-related technology) 2. Give guidelines for the mode we're kind of operating in-- publish Info RFC and submit to JTC1 3. Solve the ISIS registry problem. The approach was to have a good enough result and make sure that if something doesn't work (such as the submission to JTC1 part), we don't get in a situation worse than we are in at the moment. In fact if bullet 2 above does not work, we still have bullets 1 and 3 that are helpful. > As an aid to the "show of hands" I have tried to make a list of > current work which I believe falls into the category of extensions > requiring ISO approval. I am sure there may be differences of > opinion on how accurate my list is, but I believe it is not too far > off the mark and certainly serves to demonstrate the point that we > must be committed to do some real work to make this agreement > meaningful, and if we are not, then why bother. I don't want us to argue on this much, but here's some thoughts: > IS-IS Automatic Encapsulation > Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using IS-IS I recommended that this one was split into IETF-specific and ISO-specific parts, which Jeff did. The former should not have to go there, the latter should, of course. > TLV for Proprietary Use > Restart signaling for ISIS > Extending the Number of IS-IS LSP Fragments Beyond the 256 Limit > Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments (RFC 1195) This one is an IETF STD doc, so it actually can't go there. > IS-IS Mesh Groups (RFC 2973) > Optional Checksums in ISIS (RFC 3358) > Three-Way Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point Adjacencies (RFC 3373) > 6)As to how we evaluate whether IETF work falls inside or outside > the "core IS-IS mechanisms" definition, it seems to me that the > litmus test should(must?) be "Would implementations which are > strictly conformant to ISO 10589 have interoperability problems with > implementations using the extension?" If the answer is YES then we > have mucked with the core. Right, and I think the text in section 2.2 emphasizes this a lot, as well as tries to find a balance between a strict "stop right there" and our ability to do STD'ize useful things we develop for IP and those we've already done. > By way of example, certainly the > extensions used for adjacency formation have been demonstrated to > cause interoperability issues with strict ISO 10589 implementations > so it seems we have no choice but to submit these to ISO. This should probably be in a more specific discussion. Thanks again. Alex _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 03:08:40 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA06736 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 03:08:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA783xv24970; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 03:05:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA77wPv24686 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:58:25 -0500 Received: from psg.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06433 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 02:55:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1 ident=zinin) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 189hYJ-00003l-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:58:11 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <106104538919.20021106235739@psg.com> To: Jonathan Sadler CC: Jeff Parker , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational In-Reply-To: <14384261241.20021106181941@psg.com> References: <3DC943FF.D26CCB4F@tellabs.com> <14384261241.20021106181941@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:57:39 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, looking at my own text one more time, it already says so: > Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions are extensions to the IS-IS proto- > col that are within the work scope of the IETF (including, but not > limited to IPv4 or IPv6 unicast and multicast routing, MPLS, MPLS TE, > GMPLS, or any other routing technology that the IETF decides to work ^^^^^ > on in future), and: no jokes, please :) -- Alex Wednesday, November 06, 2002, 6:19:41 PM, Alex Zinin wrote: > Jonathan, >>> I think so. The text explicitly says "MPLS" >> How would GMPLS be handled? Is it included in the MPLS statement? Or >> is it seen as an effort outside of the IETF? > It was definitely within the IETF last time I looked at it :) GMPLS > should certainly be included. I thought "MPLS" would cover it, but I > can spell it out. > Alex > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 06:25:01 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10800 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:25:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7BLjv06109; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:21:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7BIpv06024 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:18:51 -0500 Received: from net4u.net4u.ch (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA09941 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:16:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from net4u.ch (zux006-008-226.adsl.green.ch [81.6.8.226]) by net4u.net4u.ch (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA7BIRA05042; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:18:27 +0100 Message-ID: <3DCA4BA8.3050302@net4u.ch> From: Tony Przygienda Reply-To: prz@net4u.ch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Manral, Vishwas" CC: "'Naiming Shen'" , Chris Hopps , "'RJ Atkinson'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:16:56 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Manral, Vishwas wrote: >Hi Naiming, > >I wouldn't like to start the site local discussion here, there is a very >active discussion going on on the IPng list on this topic itself. > >However one of the advantages I remember reading on the list are for long >lived TCP connections/renumbering etc. > After having monitored this IPv6 discussion for a while, I wanted to bring the horses back a little. For a good spec it is as important not to say things as it is to say them. Unless we have a MUST or MUST NOT (or SHOULD for optionals), mostly there is no reason to ruminate on things (with notable exception of security). Chris added : 7. Site-local Addressing No protocol modifications are made to support IPv6 site-local addressing. If the operator does not restrict level 1 to level 2 route redistribution of a site-local prefix then the scope of the prefix will be the IS-IS routing domain. Conversely, if the operator chooses to restrict level 1 to level 2 redistribution of the site- local prefix then the scope of site-local prefix will be the originating level 1 area. Well, ultimately this is not adding any value to this draft, we're saying we're not saying anything or rather saying things about stuff that is not our business. We are not in business to tell people how they can hang themselves or how they have to configure the protocol to make their deployments work. We are in the business of specifying bits of wires that will make implementations interoperate. I concurr with Naiming and my last comment would be to nuke this section unless IPv6 people come up with things they want as normative MUSTs (which means they have a thorough understanding of what they want) or just leave this nonsense section as it is and get the document into 'another' last call. thanks -- tony _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 09:30:12 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25821 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:30:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7EQVv20616; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:26:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7ENHv20467 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:23:17 -0500 Received: from tahoe.sj.allegronetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25423 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:20:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by tahoe.allegronetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:23:03 -0800 Message-ID: From: Chris Hopps To: "'prz@net4u.ch'" , "'Manral, Vishwas'" Cc: "'Naiming Shen'" , "'RJ Atkinson'" , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:23:01 -0800 I would be happy to eliminate the section. In which case this document has already been last called in it's -02 form. I can resubmit w/o section 7, and we can make it an RFC, with any luck. Chris. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Przygienda [mailto:prz@net4u.ch] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:17 AM To: Manral, Vishwas Cc: 'Naiming Shen'; Chris Hopps; 'RJ Atkinson'; 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: Re: "ipv6 site-local" (was [Isis-wg] ISIS agenda ... ) Manral, Vishwas wrote: >Hi Naiming, > >I wouldn't like to start the site local discussion here, there is a very >active discussion going on on the IPng list on this topic itself. > >However one of the advantages I remember reading on the list are for long >lived TCP connections/renumbering etc. > After having monitored this IPv6 discussion for a while, I wanted to bring the horses back a little. For a good spec it is as important not to say things as it is to say them. Unless we have a MUST or MUST NOT (or SHOULD for optionals), mostly there is no reason to ruminate on things (with notable exception of security). Chris added : 7. Site-local Addressing No protocol modifications are made to support IPv6 site-local addressing. If the operator does not restrict level 1 to level 2 route redistribution of a site-local prefix then the scope of the prefix will be the IS-IS routing domain. Conversely, if the operator chooses to restrict level 1 to level 2 redistribution of the site- local prefix then the scope of site-local prefix will be the originating level 1 area. Well, ultimately this is not adding any value to this draft, we're saying we're not saying anything or rather saying things about stuff that is not our business. We are not in business to tell people how they can hang themselves or how they have to configure the protocol to make their deployments work. We are in the business of specifying bits of wires that will make implementations interoperate. I concurr with Naiming and my last comment would be to nuke this section unless IPv6 people come up with things they want as normative MUSTs (which means they have a thorough understanding of what they want) or just leave this nonsense section as it is and get the document into 'another' last call. thanks -- tony _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 10:42:08 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28612 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:42:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7FcOv26247; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:38:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7FWov25451 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:32:50 -0500 Received: from bridge.axiowave.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28242 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:30:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jeff Parker To: "'Alex Zinin'" , Jonathan Sadler Cc: Jeff Parker , "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Fwd: Last Call: Draft of agreement between ISOC/IET F and SO/IEC JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS protocol development to Informational MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:32:38 -0500 > Jonathan, > > >> I think so. The text explicitly says "MPLS" > > > How would GMPLS be handled? Is it included in the MPLS > statement? Or > > is it seen as an effort outside of the IETF? > > It was definitely within the IETF last time I looked at it :) GMPLS > should certainly be included. I thought "MPLS" would cover it, but I > can spell it out. > > Alex Alex - The issue is not these protocols in particular, but how to make sure that we have leeway for the next project we take on. I agree that MPLS and GMPLS are IETF things: but reasonable people could differ on whether they fit under the charter below Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions are extensions to the IS-IS proto- col that are within the work scope of the IETF (including, but not limited to IPv4 or IPv6 unicast and multicast routing, MPLS, MPLS TE, GMPLS, or any other routing technology that the IETF decides to work on in future), and: I shouldn't be carping without a solution in mind. Given that we don't want to run DNS over ISIS, perhaps adding a clause will cover my concern on this phrase. Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions are extensions to the IS-IS proto- col that are within the work scope of the IETF including any routing or packet forwarding technology that the IETF decides to work on in future. - jeff parker _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 7 16:23:13 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13739 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:23:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7LHQv20812; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:17:26 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7KZ2v15453 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:35:02 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08965 for <1timer>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:11:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211072011.PAA08965@ietf.org> From: The IESG To: All IETF Working Groups: ; x-msg: NoteWell Subject: [Isis-wg] Note Well Statement Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:11:40 -0500 From time to time, especially just before a meeting, this statement is to be sent to each and every IETF working group mailing list. =========================================================================== NOTE WELL All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to - the IETF plenary session, - any IETF working group or portion thereof, - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Fri Nov 8 00:47:05 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26648 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:47:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA85hOv18470; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:43:25 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA85e2v18377 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:40:02 -0500 Received: from xover.netplane.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA26469 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by XOVER.dedham.mindspeed.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B0HP9RV>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:39:53 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Manral, Vishwas" To: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Isis-wg] draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:41:51 -0500 Hi Tony L., Wouldn't the MaxPath metric be (2^32 -1) - (2^24 -2) = (2^32 - 2^24 + 1), As the maximum link metric that would be considered for SPF is (2^24 - 2) and not (2^32 - 2^25)? Thanks, Vishwas _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Fri Nov 8 01:36:47 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28403 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:36:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA86Xwv21476; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:33:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA86Vsv21418 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:31:54 -0500 Received: from xover.netplane.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA28035 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:29:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by XOVER.dedham.mindspeed.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <4B0HP9T8>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:31:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Manral, Vishwas" To: "'isis-wg@ietf.org'" Cc: "'tli@procket.com'" , "'henk@procket.com'" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:07:39 -0500 Hi Tony L., Besides I guess there is a problem with section 5. It says " If a prefix is advertised with a metric larger then MAX_PATH_METRIC (0xFE000000, see paragraph 4.0), this prefix should not be considered during the normal SPF computation." I do understand IP reachability is treated as hosts(stubs) during the routing table calculation, however if the path metric is close to MAX_PATH_METRIC and the metric for the link is greater than (2^24 - 1) it will overflow. I think the statement should be "larger than or equal to MAX_LINK_METRIC" which could be defined as (2^24 - 1). Thanks, Vishwas -----Original Message----- From: Manral, Vishwas [mailto:VishwasM@netplane.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:12 AM To: 'isis-wg@ietf.org' Subject: [Isis-wg] draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt Hi Tony L., Wouldn't the MaxPath metric be (2^32 -1) - (2^24 -2) = (2^32 - 2^24 + 1), As the maximum link metric that would be considered for SPF is (2^24 - 2) and not (2^32 - 2^25)? Thanks, Vishwas _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 12 16:25:19 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16591 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:25:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACLKav31231; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:20:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACL8Nv30831 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:08:23 -0500 Received: from celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15753 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:05:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:08:16 -0500 Message-ID: <1117F7D44159934FB116E36F4ABF221B0102EA85@celox-ma1-ems1.celoxnetworks.com> From: "Ganguly, Shamik" To: "ISIS-WG (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] editorial comments to -10 mib draft MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:08:11 -0500 Hi Jeff, I have a query regarding all ExistState objects in Draft 10 of ISIS mib. This object is there in isisSysTable, isisSummAddrTable, isisRedistributeAddrTable and isisCircTable. All of these objects have a DEFVAL of 'active'. Can you explain why? ExistState object is supposed to follow the behavior of RowStatus textual convention as described in RFC 1443. For correct RowStatus behavior, these objects should not have any default values. -Shamik -----Original Message----- From: Noguchi Kay [mailto:kay@ipinfusion.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 6:11 PM To: ISIS-WG (E-mail) Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] editorial comments to -10 mib draft Hi Jeff, > > 2, isisSysLevelTable mibs should be placed after > > isisRedistributeAddrTable. > > I don't mind moving it, but I don't see the reason to do so. > Why is that a better place for it? From the mib point of view, isisSysLevelTable is after isisRedistributeTable shown below. .1.3.6.1.3.37.1.1.6: isisRedistributeTable .1.3.6.1.3.37.1.2.1: isisSysLevelTable Thank you, kay _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Tue Nov 12 16:37:06 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA17155 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:37:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACLYDv32203; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:34:13 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gACLVSv32009 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:31:28 -0500 Received: from bridge.axiowave.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16718 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:28:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jeff Parker To: "'Ganguly, Shamik'" , "ISIS-WG (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] editorial comments to -10 mib draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:31:18 -0500 > I have a query regarding all ExistState objects.. > This object is there in isisSysTable, isisSummAddrTable, > isisRedistributeAddrTable and isisCircTable. All of these > objects have a DEFVAL of 'active'. > Can you explain why? I plead ignorance. > ExistState object is supposed to > follow the behavior of RowStatus textual convention as > described in RFC 1443. For correct RowStatus behavior, > these objects should not have any default values. > > -Shamik Thanks - I have updated. There seemed to be a few more as well. isisSysExistState OBJECT-TYPE isisManAreaAddrExistState OBJECT-TYPE isisSysProtSuppExistState OBJECT-TYPE isisSummAddrExistState OBJECT-TYPE isisRedistributeAddrExistState OBJECT-TYPE isisCircExistState OBJECT-TYPE isisRAExistState OBJECT-TYPE isisIPRAExistState OBJECT-TYPE - jeff parker _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Fri Nov 15 21:24:49 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27185 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:24:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAG2OHv01776; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:24:17 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAG2KGv01680 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:20:16 -0500 Received: from titanium.ekay.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA27042 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:17:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=titanium.ekay.org) by titanium.ekay.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18CsbH-00014y-00 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:22:23 -0800 Message-ID: <87adkanti8.wl@titanium.ekay.org> From: Noguchi Kay To: isis-wg@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.8.1 (Something) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Isis-wg] isisSysSPFRuns Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:22:23 -0800 Hi Jeff, Let's change isisSysSPFRuns to isisSysStatSPFRuns like other mibs. # Also let's fix indentation in the below. IsisSystemCounterEntry ::= SEQUENCE { isisSysStatLevel INTEGER, isisSysStatCorrLSPs Counter32, isisSysStatAuthTypeFails Counter32, isisSysStatAuthFails Counter32, isisSysStatLSPDbaseOloads Counter32, isisSysStatManAddrDropFromAreas Counter32, isisSysStatAttmptToExMaxSeqNums Counter32, isisSysStatSeqNumSkips Counter32, isisSysStatOwnLSPPurges Counter32, isisSysStatIDFieldLenMismatches Counter32, isisSysStatMaxAreaAddrMismatches Counter32, isisSysStatPartChanges Counter32, isisSysSPFRuns Counter32 } Thank you, kay _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 21 14:17:20 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16392 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:17:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gALJGvv07922; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:16:58 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gALJF9v07841 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:15:09 -0500 Received: from bridge.axiowave.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16143 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:11:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: From: Jeff Parker To: "ISIS-WG (E-mail)" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Isis-wg] FW: [Fwd: Attribute Ranges] Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:13:55 -0500 > > > From: Jeff Pickering [mailto:jeffp@caspiannetworks.com] > > > To: Jeff Parker > > > Subject: [Fwd: Attribute Ranges] > > > > > > Jeff, > > > > > > One of our guys has pointed out that the MIB's > > > acceptable range for mesh IDs doesn't match that used > > > by common implementations. In your opinion, should the > > > MIB reflect these implmentations? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Jeff (Pickering) Jeff - I put the bounds in to silence some SMICng warnings. I thought the bounds were high enough, but I don't know of any reason to rule out any value here. What would you like to see? Does anyone have "special" values of the Group value that mean "Blocked" or "Uninit"? Is there any reason not to make this Unsigned32? - jeff parker _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Mon Nov 25 23:08:10 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08548 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:08:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAQ48Dv19480; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:08:14 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAQ46bv18873 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:06:37 -0500 Received: from titanium.ekay.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA08473 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=titanium.ekay.org) by titanium.ekay.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18GWzg-0001XS-00 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:06:40 -0800 Message-ID: <87vg2lt1nz.wl@titanium.ekay.org> From: Noguchi Kay To: isis-wg@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.8.1 (Something) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Isis-wg] isisLSPTLVIndex Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:06:40 -0800 Hi Jeff, MAX-ACCESS attribute for isisLSPTLVIndex should be not-accessible, instead of read-only, because isisLSPTLVIndex is the index for the isisLSPTLVEntry. Thank you, kay _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 28 07:36:21 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26598 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gASCZnv17306; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:35:50 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gASCYtv17274 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:34:55 -0500 Received: from lxmail.xebeo.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA26507 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 20997 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2002 12:34:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO xebeo.com) (192.168.2.180) by lxmail.xebeo.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2002 12:34:52 -0000 Message-ID: <3DE60C03.6030907@xebeo.com> From: Tony Przygienda Reply-To: prz@xebeo.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isis-wg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isis-wg] Following things look like being ready for last calls ... Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:28:51 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Given the level of discussion (or rather lack thereof) and state of the drafts, I think following things would be ready to go last call and I will issue them in couple of days until I see objections: . draft-ietf-isis-admin-tags-01 . draft-ietf-isis-igp-p2p-over-lan-01 . draft-ietf-isis-interoperable-01 . draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-00 . draft-ietf-isis-iso-interoperable-00 . draft-ietf-isis-restart-02 Status of other things: . draft-ietf-isis-auto-encap-02: I don't think there was enough discussion on that one and I would be also more comfortable if I heard from interoperating implementations. It looks to me like a thing that could be less obvious in code than in writing in terms of corner-cases. . draft-ietf-isis-proprietary-tlv-00: there is some interesting discussion on the nature of this beast that needs to be resolved going on. I will mail to the list a summary/open a discussion after the political/high-level architectural picture got into some shape worth presenting to the list. . draft-ietf-isis-wg-mib-10: still see lots of work being done. thanks -- tony _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Thu Nov 28 07:54:27 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26991 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gASCsAv18513; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:54:10 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gASCrgv18491 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:53:42 -0500 Received: from net4u.net4u.ch (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26905 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:50:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from net4u.ch (zux006-030-175.adsl.green.ch [81.6.30.175]) by net4u.net4u.ch (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gASCrZW26576; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:53:35 +0100 Message-ID: <3DE61062.6060906@net4u.ch> From: Tony Przygienda Reply-To: prz@net4u.ch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isis-wg@ietf.org CC: Alex Zinin , Bill Fenner , Tony Li Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Isis-wg] meeting minutes ... Sender: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: isis-wg-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:47:30 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks to Danny for taking the notes and shipping them of in fully-formatted form already ;-) - tony IS-IS WG Minutes - IETF 55, Atlanta GA November 19, 2002 Chair: Tony Przygienda Recorder: Danny McPherson =================================================== Milestones, Administrativia, Etc.. Tony Przygienda 3 RFCs Published: o Optional Checksums - 3358 o TLV Codepoint List - 3359 o 3-way Handshake - 3373 Draft Status o MIB (-10) - will be ready for LC Dec 2002 ? o Cryptographic Authentication (-03) - AD COmments o GMPLS Extensions(-14) - AD COmments o TE Extensions (-04)- AD COmments o IPv6 (-03) - Last Call Dec '02 o M-ISIS (-05) - Last Call Passed 11/11/02 o Extended Ethernet Frame (-01) - AD Comments o Restart (-02) - Last Call Dec '02 o P2P over LAN (-01) - Mar '03 o 256+ Fragments (-02) - Waiting for Publication o Auto Encapsulation (-02) - Mar '03 o Administrative Tags (-01) - Last Call Dec '02 o Propietary TLVs (-00) - Last Call Dec '02 o Interoperable IP Networks (-00) - LC Dec '02 o Interoperable Networks (-00) - Last Call Dec '02 =================================================== +256 LSP Fragments Amir Hermelin o Pending issue o Comments since Yokohama have been integrated o In WG & AD/IESG Last Call o In RFC Editor o Document Issue: Has normative reference to TE draft regarding sub-TLV processing. Until ISIS-TE draft is published this draft remains in queue and won't be published. Question: Any suggestions? Amir Hermelin: If this draft doesn't progress because of TE draft progress then we need to find solution. AD/Alex Zinin: ADs will do everything possible to help publish the draft once new revision is completed. Christian Hopps: v6 draft is on hold for same reason as well. Amir Hermelin: Need TE draft to progress. =================================================== Multi-Topology Routing in ISIS (-05) Tony Przygienda o Management color of sub-TLV gone o Genernic SPF and acording bit gone o Forwarding scenarios considerations added o Network management considerations added o Overload bit capability per MT added o MT #4 reserved for IPv6 =================================================== IETF/JTC1 Agreement on IS-IS Protocol Development AD/Alex Zinin Problem Statement: o Current Approach: - Publish as INFO - Submit to ISO/IEC JTC1 o Problems: - We are not putting Internet-related mechanisms on STD track - Derivitive work cannot go STD either -- ref problem - Other SDOs can't cte our docs - No registry to manage TLV namespace Question to WG: Does anyone object that these are real problems? Kireeti Kompella: Managing TLVs, perhaps not, but STD issue is problem for lots of folks. Tony Przygienda: Concur with Kireeti. Registry, secure a solution. Small number of implementing companies. Information is more than enough. STD track just generates lots of work for standards weenies! Doesn't need to be published, it's reality! Kireeti Kompella: Let Alex Zinin do all the work and I'll be happy. Interaction with JTC1 and we have the ability to make STD track and reclassify RFCs great, otherwise, lots of reviews and more work is waste of time. AD/Alex ZInin: If we have rules then we can do this, but the WG can't "reclassify", documents will have to be resubmitted to the STD process. Tony Przygienda: Lots of work & time, irrelevant, and will hang there until it expires. AD/Alex Zinin: If WG agrees that it's a waste of time should he talk to JTC1 and try to do something useful? Tony Przygienda: It's useful if they want to cite our documents while they remain INFO, otherwise, if they need to be STD forget it. Lot of work. AD/Alex Zinin: Let them do the work. Primary work is to get stuff done, this is getting WAY in the way of getting stuff done. Maybe you'll find enough people to get the work done but maybe not. Kireeti Kompella: Current process as INFO still requires lots of reviews. However, we have this problem and it's reviewed as INFO but treated like STD and now we're repeating the work. If workload can be reduced in STD process but otherwise, forget it. Kireeti Kompella: Are other bodies interested in taking our submissions? AD/Alex Zinin: Submit means we're handing documents to them and serving as document editor. Start fast-track process within JTC. As far as are they interested in our input, yes. As far as getting the work done themselves, he doubts. First revision of submission of external class A liasion submssion is in original submission. Follwing submissions are reformatted and they handle it from there. AD/Alex Zinin: Do we want to have responsibility? Do we want to have an agreement with them or not? Kireeti Kompella: It's black and white. If you have agreement but requires STD then we have to go back and work. Don't like that. AD/Alex Zinin: Goal of agreement is to give JTC1 ownsership of spec but us owning Internet-related technologies. This agreement does not create more work than other WGs already have. It creates more work than what we currently have. Kireeti Kompella: It requires that we go back and redo things we've already done. INFO drafts have been treated like STD track and it's just creeating more work. AD/Alex Zinin: Can't make exception for IS-IS with real STD work, else Yakov or others will come and say "Why do I have to do this, IS-IS didn't?". Back to Approach: Basics: o IETF is the Place for STD Internet-related stuff o ISO/IEC JTC1 owns the protocol spec o Not trying to take the protocol over o Define Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions [Other Stuff] - bunch of details o IANA Create and maintain IS-IS registry Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions: o We specify based on the Core IS-IS definition - bunch of details o We specify based Internet-specific Extensions - bunch of details o Defacto Implementation Agreements - bunch of details Work Separation: JTC1 will not standardize Internet- specific stuff, Ask IANA to create and maintain an IS-IS registry (until JTC creates one). Discussion: o On-the-border cases o Add some text on how IETF comments can be distributed within JTC1 o Need IETF -> JTC1 document mapping o Project editor for JTC1 submissions - In the loop of JTC1 process, can mostly take place in email. AD/Alex Zinin: Do we want this agreement or not? Tony Przygienda: Then you need to Make a motion for each of the components, or do you want it to be made as a single component. AD/Alex Zinin: Does the WG believe this agreement is useful? and should be progressed? Who is in favor?: [~15 hands in the audience are raised] Who is against?: [0 hands in the audience are raised] Meeting adjourned. _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg