Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Thu, 25 May 2017 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F25129BAA for <>; Wed, 24 May 2017 18:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35AC89CxbbdX for <>; Wed, 24 May 2017 18:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C90BA129BC5 for <>; Wed, 24 May 2017 18:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5193; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1495675007; x=1496884607; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Zq2uirX/yQseipa9QkJ1kdOYbcEpEDgqWCdTAnLHEmE=; b=UMNnx5vZDln9Sn5rST/a8ziL+XeDkHwHyfq/2Fdbvpp++Dyckx18mNyK l7LPwZu22HApgsUkEF4yx3hJHaIgWV8vXW87mMAZRjZoKRCMzQpQbl0JX TQxTMvKyFvdsM2uZZLYKdtLv0vpmHhLER2c++IvkN0KcmKZulPbGWuB+X Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,389,1491264000"; d="scan'208";a="429051689"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 May 2017 01:16:46 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4P1Gk2Y019074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 May 2017 01:16:46 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 24 May 2017 20:16:45 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 24 May 2017 20:16:45 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: "" <>
CC: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mirja_K=FChlewind?= <>, Adam Roach <>, Eric Rescorla <>, Suresh Krishnan <>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <>, "" <>, Alissa Cooper <>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>, "Kathleen Moriarty" <>, Ben Campbell <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS1PAo4KdfACMqLUawlr6I8TMo4KIEOBAA
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 01:16:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 01:16:50 -0000

Folks -

This revision addresses a number of review comments received during IESG review.

Here are some responses to some of the points raised by reviewers (all reviewers have been copied on this email I hope).

1)Security section has been revised.

2)* Appendix A: The length value for "L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors"
under "TLV for Adjacency #2" is wrong. It says 29 but it needs to be 32

This has been corrected - thank you Suresh.
I also changed to using RFC5737 approved addresses in the examples.

3)Comments provided by Mahesh in his OPS DIR review and cited by Benoit have been addressed

4)Alvaro commented: 

    " I would like to see some discussion related to the "interface" with these external entities."

I have added explicit text indicating this is out of scope. To defend this here are several examples:

   RFC 5305 does not discuss how link attribute information is passed to TE applications
   Protocol documents do not define how information is passed to PCE - we have PCE WG documents for that
   Protocol documents do not define how link state info is passed to BGP-LS - we write separate BGP-LS drafts for that

I hope my response suffices.

5)Kathleen Moriarty argued that advertisement of
   o  IPv4 Interface Address (sub-TLV 6 defined in [RFC5305])
   o  IPv6 Interface Address (sub-TLV 12 defined in [RFC6119])
   o  Link Local/Remote Identifiers (sub-TLV 4 defined in [RFC5307])

exposes new security issues.

I disagree.

Interface addresses are associated with the parent L3 link and are already being advertised by IS-IS via existing TE extensions (e.g. RFC 5305, RFC 4205).
Link IDs for the L2 Links which are advertised are readily available today via network management tools.

6)The shepherd's report and some reviewers have mentioned that there currently is no OSPF equivalent document.

This statement is true, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the progress of this IS-IS draft.
It is often the case that equivalent drafts are written for OSPF and IS-IS because the same functionality may be required in deployments using either protocol. However we have never linked the progress of the two documents together - it is often the case that one document is written and proceeds before the other.

I think it would be quite reasonable for OSPF to support equivalent functionality and it may be that someone - based on real deployment requirements (which is what has driven the writing of the IS-IS draft) - will write such a draft soon. But why this is deemed an issue for the progression of the IS-IS draft is a mystery to me.

I do want to thank all the reviewers for their time and their diligence. I think the document is significantly improved based on your comments.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Isis-wg [] On Behalf Of internet-
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 5:45 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: [Isis-wg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
> 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 of the IETF.
>         Title           : Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
>         Authors         : Les Ginsberg
>                           Ahmed Bashandy
>                           Clarence Filsfils
>                           Mohan Nanduri
>                           Ebben Aries
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-06.txt
> 	Pages           : 17
> 	Date            : 2017-05-24
> Abstract:
>    There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which IS-IS
>    operates is a Layer 2 interface bundle.  Existing IS-IS
>    advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the Layer
>    3 interface.  If entities external to IS-IS wish to control traffic
>    flows on the individual physical links which comprise the Layer 2
>    interface bundle link attribute information about the bundle members
>    is required.
>    This document introduces the ability for IS-IS to advertise the link
>    attributes of layer 2 (L2) bundle members.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list