Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sun, 22 January 2017 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6253129498; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:56:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.721 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=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N5ZwKvQ2J2gT; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3F29129493; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:56:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6294; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485129395; x=1486338995; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=6rdNjIlSDI6xqLzL4Uoaxy1uLAhHW/eW1DAReE8WK74=; b=E2UM22upXsWGXJF5PENudzYVppS9h4RWFBOrrFVvroLuHImfL2MWMLUU evkAPXavhf3zmsmivkQ0JqEvT3uuSM8R5jjk8b3Gc0ZPqxW5eMUOapW9U TmsHTIhsRcWtLCWKK8gs2xvXFuVy3HkH4LIv4sdJhIz6MKhLdob3IpDV1 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AhAQBtRoVY/5FdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgz0BAQEBAR9ggQkHg0yKCJIClS6CDR8LhXgCGoF7PxgBAgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQFjKIRpAQEBAwEBARsXOgsMBAIBCBEEAQEBBCMFAgIlCxQJCAIEAQ0FiQQID?= =?us-ascii?q?o8knUYGgieKOgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQWKNodJgmQFm0sBhmG?= =?us-ascii?q?LCJBuknUBHziBRxU6hjZzhV0rgQOBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,270,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="198483043"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jan 2017 23:56:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0MNuIxu011995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:56:19 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:56:18 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:56:18 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04
Thread-Index: AQHScLlfiAQ81s+pYEybS3QN6rpQoqFEiGEAgACb/QCAABBiAA==
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:56:17 +0000
Message-ID: <D4AAAE86.98591%acee@cisco.com>
References: <87mvepkiag.fsf@chopps.org> <D4AA1E05.983BF%acee@cisco.com> <15933d66e9e3427ea850374610372296@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <15933d66e9e3427ea850374610372296@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <C41B951BB40DAE49A0F0CEF5B12ED725@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/8AZ5usHtPsIS9Btbn0SpxhfpCi0>
Cc: "draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@ietf.org>, "isis-ads@ietf.org" <isis-ads@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 23:56:37 -0000

Hi Les, 

On 1/22/17, 12:57 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote:

>Acee -
>
>Thanx for reviewing the document.
>Responses inline.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
>> (acee)
>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:39 AM
>> To: Christian Hopps; isis-wg@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org; isis-chairs@ietf.org;
>>isis-ads@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04
>> 
>> Hi IS-IS WG,
>> 
>> I have reviewed the document and support publication. I have the
>>following
>> minor comments:
>> 
>>     1. It should be made clear that the A-Bit indicates that an IS-IS
>>router
>> supports auto-configuration and, is not, necessarily auto-configured
>>itself.
>> After reading the whole draft, I know that this is the definition of
>>the bit but
>> the initial text says the router is ³operating in auto-configuration
>>mode.²
>
>[Les:] It is clearly stated that the A flag does indeed mean
>
>" the router is operating in auto-configuration mode."
>
>I do not see any text which suggests otherwise.

But there is no prior definition of “auto-configuration mode”. I think
most readers would believe that this indicates that only routers
performing auto-configuration will form adjacencies. Yet the documents
states: 

   This document also defines mechanisms to prevent the unintentional
   interoperation of auto-configured routers with non-autoconfigured
   routers.  See Section 3.3.


Where is the interoperation? This definitely needs to be clarified - I
don’t see how the authors can argue on this point!

>
>???
>
>>     2. In the duplicate detection in section 3.4.3, could you note that
>>an IS-IS
>> router should be able to detect discern the case where two interfaces
>>on the
>> IS-IS router performing auto-configuration are connected to the same
>> network.
>> 
>[Les:] Multiple connections of the same system to the same network can
>occur in the absence of auto-configuration and detection of this case is
>not altered by auto-configuration. This is detected by receiving a hello
>with the same source MAC address as a local interface. There are then the
>following cases:
>
>1)Two interfaces on the local router are connected to the same media.
>This is further validated by having the same systemID. The means for
>detecting this as well as resolving this are not altered by
>auto-configuration.
>
>2)Two neighbors connected to the same network have the same source MAC
>address. This is distinguished by having different system IDs in the
>hellos. The means for detecting this as well as resolving this are not
>altered by auto-configuration.
>
>3)Two neighbors connected to the same network have the same source MAC
>address and the same systemID. This is distinguished by having different
>router fingerprint TLVs in the hellos - something only an auto-config
>router could do. But the additional detection capability does not provide
>any additional means to correct this issue.
>
>The authors discussed this point during the writing of the draft and
>decided specifically NOT to comment on this issue as it by nature is no
>different than what can occur without auto-config and there is no good
>way to automatically recover from this case i.e. clearly we cannot alter
>the physical connections by programmatic means - nor do we assume/require
>a programmatic capability of assigning MAC addresses.
> 
>So, I am not sure what we could say other than to note that this can
>occur - but non-auto-config implementations already have to detect this -
>so does it make sense to comment on this in the auto-config draft?

Given that consequences of this mis-wiring are more severe when IS-IS
auto-configuration is being used, I think this deserves at least the
discussion above included in the draft.

Thanks,
Acee 



>
>   Les
>
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>> 
>> On 1/17/17, 7:00 AM, "Isis-wg on behalf of Christian Hopps"
>> <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >Hi Folks,
>> >
>> >We are starting a WG Last Call for
>> >
>> >  "ISIS Auto-Configuration"
>> >  - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf/
>> >
>> >The WGLC will expire in 2 weeks on Jan 31, 2017.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Chris & Hannes.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg