Re: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Les,

Thanks for the clear explanation! 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 7:37 AM
> To: Uma Chunduri; ISIS-WG
> Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Mach Chen
> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
> 
> (Not sure why Mach's email address keeps disappearing from the TO list -
> hopefully he is receiving copies via the WG alias)

Yes, I am watching :-)

> 
> Uma -
> 
> Mach and I have had some discussions about doing a BIS for RFC 5316 because
> TLV 141 has a similar issue since its format stipulates a 32 bit router ID. If that
> were to happen I think that is the best place to clarify the content of sub-TLVs
> 11/12.
> What do you think?
> 
> Note  that we don't really have a use case for sub-TLV 11(IPv4 Router ID) since
> that Router ID can be encoded in the fixed part of TLV 141/242.

Regarding sub-TLV 11, when sent with the 32 bit router ID, it is indeed a bit redundant. 
Thinking more about it, there may be a use case that two IPv4 networks(ASes) connected by a IPv6 network (AS), for the IPv6 AS, the ASBRs support dual stack. To setup an end-to-end IPv4 TE LSP, the ASBRs to need to advertise their IPv4 TE Router ID within the domain. Is this case valid?

Best regards,
Mach

> 
> Note also that to resolve the TLV 141 issue we need to define the equivalent of
> TLV242/sub-TLV 12 for TLV 141.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 4:04 PM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); ISIS-WG
> > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> >
> > Les,
> >
> > In-line [Uma]:
> >
> > --
> > Uma C.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:51 AM
> > To: Uma Chunduri; ISIS-WG
> > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> >
> > Uma -
> >
> > Thanx for the comments.
> >
> > If you read RFC 5316 Section 3.2 I think it is clear that the TLV 242
> > sub-TLVs defined there are meant to advertise what is in TLVs 134/140.
> > [Uma]:  Loosely yes, but it really gets murky  if we see 3.3.4 and 3.3.5.
> >
> > If you think that RFC 5316 is not explicit enough we can discuss the
> > best way to clarify that. I am not sure that rfc4971bis is the best
> > place to do that - but we can certainly discuss.
> >
> > [Uma]:  It's not that explicit, IMO. I am sure you are thinking of the
> > implications from 5316 PoV if we make it explicit?
> > Like v4, it's too good to clarify non-TE situation with IPv6 too.
> >
> >    Les
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:43 AM
> > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); ISIS-WG
> > > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > In various contexts this hole has been discussed multiple times and
> > > today we have to have an IPv4 router ID have to be configured even
> > > for IPv6-only deployments.
> > > I see the proposed text is a reasonable and perhaps less disruptive
> > > way to address this .
> > >
> > > May be it's good disambiguate further this should be tied to TLV 140
> > > (RFC 6119); meaning the  sub-TLV 12 (RFC 5316) should be matching to
> > > TLV 140 if both are present.
> > > Thoughts?
> > > --
> > > Uma C.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Les
> > > Ginsberg
> > > (ginsberg)
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:04 PM
> > > To: ISIS-WG
> > > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > > Subject: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > >
> > > Folks -
> > >
> > > We have just submitted a bis draft for RFC 4971 to define how to use
> > > TLV 242 on a router which supports only IPv6 (has no IPv4 addresses).
> > >
> > > The draft is identical to the original RFC except for:
> > >
> > > 1)New text at the beginning of Section 3 defining how to use the TLV
> > > when no IPv4 Router ID is present
> > >
> > > 2)References have been updated
> > >
> > > Please let us know of any questions or comments.
> > >
> > >    Les (on behalf of Stefano and Mach)
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:59 PM
> > > To: Mach Chen; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);
> > > Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Mach Chen
> > > (Guoyi)
> > > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the
> > > IETF repository.
> > >
> > > Name:		draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis
> > > Revision:	00
> > > Title:		IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router Info
> > > Document date:	2015-10-07
> > > Group:		Individual Submission
> > > Pages:		9
> > > URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis-
> > > rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > > Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis/
> > > Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00
> > >
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >    This document defines a new optional Intermediate System to
> > >    Intermediate System (IS-IS) TLV named CAPABILITY, formed of multiple
> > >    sub-TLVs, which allows a router to announce its capabilities within
> > >    an IS-IS level or the entire routing domain.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> > >
> > > The IETF Secretariat
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Isis-wg mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg