Re: [Isis-wg] Proposed isis-wg documents - draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00

Uma,

Chris is right. There is explicit route preference rules established for IPv6 TLVs (RFC5308), old IPv4 (RFC 5302) but unfortunately there's nothing in RFC5305 for extended IPv4 TLVs, so implementators can reuse behaviors from 5308 or 5302 or none of them. This, unfortunately, leads freedom for interoperability issues.
IMO, It makes sense to clarify the behavior.

Stephane

-----Original Message-----
From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 08:55
To: Uma Chunduri
Cc: Hannes Gredler; Christian Hopps; isis-wg@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Proposed isis-wg documents - draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00

On Aug 20, 2014, at 11:04 PM, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com> wrote:

> We know  multiple  places  in 5302 and 5305 it's clearly said "Down" bit MUST NOT be set in L2. 
> But I see the corner case in Section 4.1  where "Down" bit was allowed in the same level.
> 
> Now if that is the premise of this work - let's focus bit more on the problem see as described in Appendix A;
> 
> " o  R2 has two possible paths to reach 10/8, Level 2 route with metric
>      2002, up/down bit is 0 (from R0) and Level 2 route with metric
>      101, up/down bit is 1 (from R3).  R2 selects R1 as nexthop to 10/8
>      because it prefers the route which does NOT have up/down bit set."
> 
> 
> Why? 
> Please clarify, which document said exactly prefer a route "which does NOT have up/down bit set". 
> 
> I could not see it neither in 5302 nor in 5305. To me this is R2 implementation issue (NOT a protocol issue) in dealing with 135s.

Unfortunately it says this for IPv6 in RFC 5308. It's not hard to imagine an implementation using those preferences for both address families, particularly given that RFC5 5308 claims to be making the same changes as RFC 5305.

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> 
> --
> Uma C.
> PS: Thanks both Hannes and Chris to check back if my question (asked partially at Toronto) has been addressed.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 4:48 AM
> To: isis-wg@ietf.org list
> Cc: Hannes Gredler; Christian Hopps
> Subject: [Isis-wg] Proposed isis-wg documents.
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> During the last meeting in Toronto there was good support for making the below drafts WG documents. Unless objections are posted to the list by Friday we will move forward with doing this.
> 
> Proposed WG Documents:
> 
> 	draft-ginsberg-isis-sbfd-discriminator-00
> 	draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00
> 	draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris & Hannes.
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.