Re: [Isis-wg] Proposed Liaison response on Ethernet Jumbo Frames

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 02 June 2017 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 11CC01279E5 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 5kaYURPRn7yx for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAAD9127337 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 7so33208662wmo.1 for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YzkdfPwG/ulti9JnRwJ2Z0dH43ZD+b7iuHngk2FiVcs=; b=vYP9VmwF7NnK6qRit/d7J+FfJeqqmgLJYNMyRyvjyzNZTrWFZAo8XRXyZiNhaqEV2J +IJl9ftW8/AmAchwA6OdqbUu7kZAEalC69Yp1Sauh72gRJh4EBgZddC9nwYdtEKqf0VK WfBajIqsmOXsLcuwnR3XZ2hCYUDirc3ifg18m7qXKxwYEvIbxljj5zgGHJYtJjc7piNU suQTFCP5QA97RJmkbZXwwRMBAGLEMXDeJxvr4FLUtWQkHggNXSMllJ1huvbXnS5C6PwP N5fZgLmNJCxdZ9f31ovnlKy2sY5Y75H2sl5gKoQY0AVRBQb9oFIIwvK2RU/lcp2K8G15 Ma0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YzkdfPwG/ulti9JnRwJ2Z0dH43ZD+b7iuHngk2FiVcs=; b=tbw/GZcmLNbFakgw24auSCQBEhby2x2Qn6P/3ZGhON1vdu/QlHfzabWoEr1pe1W0Fo 6NmH/TXIHFEhwa6f1XgjqfzP95p7MN129MyGD9iUDiuZBvZMM0WbHK4jGW9/9W9s7e2n hMiTDkER1jJtcPiCaarWiwn4ZTcbKZrRs4jFyQNddld+m7ikCNwgbkiBPEKdvswACz1V yiKqLfB8b+Sesw/k2xoIt/+MJkcp0buuSKgpq0SGIZeddLi3skoXGjZoeu6yk/p1KNf6 RPNeph3nYFXcffhi7NnRyYDhi6p6/5UNJlIyPjT5eXFHaY+psyBAeS+GcNDbVLwGj+AW uonQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcABFqr4vQWkG0IanHk3HKi4BOc2HOYKiVV0h4wG1C/JVFw04jk+ Iev3RBanC2se4RC/BrT2JPNhZIg6uEwD
X-Received: by 10.28.84.67 with SMTP id p3mr633449wmi.40.1496433563147; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.135.16 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 12:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <16f9a396d9b548fba23ca570b6580394@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <CAG4d1rdVmdAarEa=twh0YWoYhLf7v5m_-Qr0QKQ9BHqUV9Ym4w@mail.gmail.com> <16f9a396d9b548fba23ca570b6580394@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:59:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfhit8Sh94TLKZ+6eWw9TY1Hw-qAWNuMrzw0eTeu9CK7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1cd712f627eb0550ff96b8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/L4nus9oPMXPbnI9_UCdLBH_VleI>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Proposed Liaison response on Ethernet Jumbo Frames
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:59:27 -0000

Hi Les,

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Alia –
>
>
>
> First, I want to thank you for all the work you did in clearing the
> issues. You have cleared the way for the outcome which I think we want –
> and done so very expeditiously – which hopefully will minimize any
> deployment of the unwanted alternate Ethertype defined by IEEE.
>
>
>
> I am fine with the text below. However, I am not sure what you are
> concerned about regarding:
>
>
>
> *“Please also discuss whether there is additional ISIS work to be done.
> I'm specifically thinking about sending hello packets at the MTU.”*
>
>
>
> It is padded hellos which are the most common use case for Jumbo frames as
> that is the default behavior for the protocol.
>
> It is also possible to send Jumbo LSPs – but this can only be done if all
> routers are configured to support a larger lsp-mtu setting and all links in
> the network on which IS-IS operates have an MTU large enough to accommodate
> the larger LSPs.
>
>
>
> In any case I don’t believe there is any work to be done here.
> Implementations which support draft-ietf-isis-ext-eth-01 already do this.
>

Right - my question is, given that draft-ietf-isis-ext-eth-01 isn't an RFC
and that there is now (hopefully with
Ethertype 88-70) an IEEE standard, is there a benefit to being explicit
about the related IS-IS padded hellos?  This is someplace where I believe
there are slightly different implementations & defaults.

That's the only work I was picturing.

Regards,
Alia



> The only work would be if we are required to support the IEEE specified
> Ethertype (C9-D1) as a transition mechanism or – perish the thought – as a
> permanent alternate. What we hope to achieve by this liason is to kill the
> new ethertype before it gets deployed.
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
> *From:* Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alia
> Atlas
> *Sent:* Friday, June 02, 2017 9:16 AM
> *To:* isis-wg@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Isis-wg] Proposed Liaison response on Ethernet Jumbo Frames
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> At the end of the ISIS WG meeting at IETF 98, I called attention to the
> recent liaison from IEEE -  https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1509/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1509/>.  There was significant
> concern expressed about the decision to use a new EtherType instead of
> EtherType 88-70, which is widely deployed.
>
>
>
> Here is a proposed liaison response, which should also update you on
> progress that has been made in this area. I would prefer to get this
> liaison, with any improvements, agreed to by June 15.
>
>
>
> =========
>
> Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your liaison on March 25.  We are happy to learn
> that IEEE now has a standard, IEEE Std 802.1AC-2016, for encoding LLC
> frames and that its use appears to be exactly as described in
> draft-ietf-isis-ext-eth-01.  There are a large number of pre-standard
> implementations and deployments of this functionality.
>
>
>
> With informal discussion, we were able to determine the current owner of
> EtherType 88-70 and have what we believe is the necessary statement so that
> this EtherType is now available for this functionality.  I would like to
> thank both Yaakov Stein, CTO RAD, for making this happen and David Aviv,
> CTO Radware.  As these types of challenges come up and have large impact,
> we would prefer to learn of them earlier so that we can try and assist
> sooner in the process.
>
>
>
> We are quite concerned about the allocation of a new EtherType given the
> extremely large deployment of this pre-standard common feature.  We would
> encourage the IEEE 802.1 Working Group to strongly consider updating IEEE
> Std 802.1AC to use the deployed EtherType 88-70 that is now available for
> this purpose.
>
>
>
> The ISIS Working Group will discuss whether there is additional work to do
> now that IEEE Std 802.1AC-2016 is available.
>
>
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Alia Atlas, IETF Routing Area Director
>
> Chris Hopps, ISIS Working Group Chair
>
> Hannes Gredler, ISIS Working Group Chair
>
>
>
> =========
>
>
>
> Please also discuss whether there is additional ISIS work to be done.  I'm
> specifically thinking about sending hello packets at the MTU.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alia
>
>
>
>
>