Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS-autoconf-04 submitted //FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-isis-auto-conf-04.txt

[Karsten Thomann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bing

Am Dienstag, 9. Juni 2015, 05:21:44 schrieb Liubing:
> Hi Karsten,
> 
> > > Regarding 3.3.2:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > What is exactly the duplication resolution, if the NET is used by an
> > > ISIS
> > > 
> > > Router not capable of autoconfig?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > In my opinion the device which is auto config capable MUST recalculate
> > > its
> > > 
> > > NET, if the other router does not advertise a Router-Fingerprint TLV.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Bing] The autoconfig should be a dedicated ISIS process that it won't
> > > be
> > > 
> > > mixed with the non-autoconf routers. This is prevented by the
> > > 
> > > Authentication TLV as described in 3.4.1.
> > 
> > Yes and no, the draft uses a MUST for the ability to change the password,
> > and there are possible cases where it is indended by design to use
> > somewhere a link between a autoconf based network and the not autoconf
> > network...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I my opinion it's a bit weak argument to not specify that behavior
> > explicitly.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Bing] I think it's good to explicitly specify the behavior.
> > 
> > But I'd prefer the behavior to be abandoning the LSP rather than
> > recalculating its NET. In this case, the router without a
> > Router-Fingerprin
> > TLV just could not joint in the autoconf process, even if the
> > authentication TLV is correct.
> > 
> > How do you think about it?
> 
> In my opinion autoconf routers should be as "passive" to the network as
> possible, and how would the abandoning of the LSP solve the issue if the
> other router is not directly connected or multihomed to other routers?
> 
> [Bing] Sorry, I'm a bit confused. Let me explain what I understood to check
> whether I was sync with you. Say, RouterB is in an Autoconf area, and also
> connected to a Non-Auto area. By accident, the RouterC in the Non-auto area
> has a NET the same with RouterB, and for some reason RouterC send a LSP
> including the AuthTLV and set the autoconf password but without a
> Router-Fingerprint TLV. Then, my understanding is that it is not a bad LSP,
> which should be dropped by RouterB's autoconf process so that it won't
> influent the autoconf process. Did I miss something?

Ok, that maybe explains our communication problem, my thinking requires at 
least 3 routers to explain it.

Example topology is the following
|A| <-> |B| <-> |C|

A is the starting router and wants to join the ISIS network, B and C already 
have built an adjacency.
C isn't autoconf capable with a configured NET and now A want's to join the 
network with the same NET as C.
My question is now, what is done to prevent the LSP war?
In my opinion C should detect the duplicate NET and as it recognizes that C 
isn't autoconf capable (as there is no Router-Fingerprint-TLV) it should 
recalculate its NET.

I hope this explains my "corner case" good enough.