Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-franke-isis-over-ipv6-00.txt

[Christian Franke <[e-mail]>]

On 07/09/2015 11:33 PM, Karsten Thomann wrote:
> an example of a switch dropping ISIS packets is a GS2200 from Zyxel, it is even mentioned in the 

Thank you for the info.

> Some additional comments:
> 3.1 SNPA
> I would use the link local IP as a tie breaker, as on the subnet are only routers able to establish 
> adjacencies if they are capable of ISIS over IPv6 and there is no backwards compatibillity needed 
> in this case.

That sounds sensible, I think I will use this approach.

> 3.2 MTU
> Why you're restricting the packet size to 1280bytes?
> The ISIS Packets SHOULD be padded up to the maximum mtu size to detect mtu mismatches on 
> the links. It is right not to use fragmentation, but this shouldn't require to limit the size to 1280 
> bytes.
> Maybe add to the fragmentation related sentence that all fragmented ISIS packets MUST be 
> ignored/dropped.

The MTU part indeed is still a bit of an issue as it is currently in the
draft.

The intention of the limit to 1280 is to allow it to work exactly the
same over various links, as all IPv6 capable links have to support an
IPv6 MTU of 1280.

However if this is used, one would need another mechanism than padding
to verify that MTUs of all routers on one link match - not sure if that
design (which is already used by OSPF) would be appreciated by this
working group as I think that the robustness that the padding adds -
e.g. allowing to detect brigeds with too small mtu in between of the
routers - is a valued feature of IS-IS.

One feature that this would allow though is indeed using fragmentation
which would permit to transport standard LSPs over IPv6 which may
otherwise be too large. However it might be cleaner to state that people
need to live with a smaller LSP size if they use IS-IS over IPv6 and
just forbid fragmentation.

Would be glad to hear your opionion on how you weight these aspects.

-Christian