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

Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de> Mon, 23 November 2015 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@sniff.de>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D811ACEAC for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 17:31:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] autolearn=ham
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 9pIYnMomZofx for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 17:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from door.sniff.de (door.sniff.de [82.212.219.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1F01ACE5F for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 17:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.sniff.de [127.0.0.1]) by door.sniff.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C3FC2AA0F; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 01:30:51 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 17:30:50 -0800
From: Marc Binderberger <marc@sniff.de>
To: prz <prz@zeta2.ch>
Message-ID: <20151122173050537778.d14b3614@sniff.de>
In-Reply-To: <b99d63fe1335dca975dc9b67b56d5824@zeta2.ch>
References: <20150703182710.5306.43728.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5596D981.4010906@opensourcerouting.org> <2393971.qq7UIhEPqS@linne> <559AD122.10404@opensourcerouting.org> <b99d63fe1335dca975dc9b67b56d5824@zeta2.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: GyazMail version 1.5.16
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/GKTQug9xPzflwnSDg0thLCWPKSY>
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-franke-isis-over-ipv6-00.txt
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 01:31:07 -0000

Hello Tony,

one question about the IPv4 draft "draft-ietf-isis-wg-over-ip": what happened 
to it?  Why was the work stopped?

It got to workgroup level, so must have passed some checks and tough 
questions :-) - and then R.I.P ?


Regards, Marc


On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 14:09:55 -0700, prz wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:04:02 +0200, Christian Franke 
> <chris@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
>> Hello Karsten,
>> 
>> thank you for your input. I have made appropriate changes to the draft,
>> they can be seen here:
>> 
>> https://git.netdef.org/projects/OSR/repos/drafts/commits/8a6e90598a4ce
>> 
>> On 07/05/2015 10:37 PM, Karsten Thomann wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if we really need this encapsulation, as there are not many 
>>> links layers left, but you
>>> should at least mention that it avoids some problems with switches 
>>> dropping ISIS LSPs if it's
>>> encapsulated in IPv6
>> 
>> The homenet working group is currently in the process of selecting a
>> routing protocol to use. In that discussion some people voiced concern
>> that IS-IS would not be a good option since it was specified on top of
>> layer 2 instead of layer 3. This draft and the demo implementation were
>> done to address these concerns. On the one hand by showing that it
>> doesn't take much to run IS-IS on top of layer 3 and on the other hand
>> to provide a standardized way to do so, should the need arise.
>> 
>> I was not aware that switches existed which drop IS-IS PDUs, although
>> it's not that hard to imagine that there are switches which are broken
>> in that way. Could you name examples for switches showing this behavior?
>> 
> 
> Hey Christian, looked @ it with one eye & since the SNAP size problem for 
> ipv6 looks rather ugly to me, a question would be whether you considered 
> use of RFC3927 to resolve the 'no ipv4 on interface' problem and just use 
> the original draft for isis over v4 (in case when no ipv4 is assigned on 
> interface, otherwise the '99 draft would work fine out-the-box). RFC3927 
> should take care of the 'same subnet' check as well that as far I remember 
> is in all major implementations (since it's all on same /16).
> 
> Just random musing given that all the solutions suggested for the ipv6 in 
> SNAP in the draft look a tad of a round peg in a square hole to me ;-)
> 
> Yes, I know HomeNet is all about IPv6.
> 
> -- tony
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>