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

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
> 