Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 23 January 2017 00:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ginsberg@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 A8E931294DB; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 16:36:08 -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 5FYsWXjrsMAO; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 16:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B39712941E; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 16:36:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6597; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1485131766; x=1486341366; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=3ERLCd8w2nmOPBkjmZWRsdJwl43iFIINwEPpc6CKZ6U=; b=Wz224KN31S4TZmtet/mV0RrPALXhmgwa3au/gMeGVd0LH77z2ABS61p3 xWEox417wLeQpGplRgyeaaX9PUjZQNOOHslSCXXvADZmrHOF2vuo42URo enIijX/9woIb/EKQ2+fD0SrOfHm5G2zTWi9iOs2LmCqkxG7/3SBDfYuny E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AUAQCiToVY/5pdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgy0QAQEBAQEfYIEJB41UkgKVLoINHwuFeAKCFT8YAQIBAQEBAQEBYyiEaQEBAQMBAQEbUQsFBwQCAQgRBAEBAScHJwsUCQgCBAENBQiIfAgOrwqKOgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhkuEcIotBY9si18BhmGKf5B3knUBHziBRxU6hjZzhV0rgQOBDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,272,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="375885603"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jan 2017 00:36:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0N0a50f022166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:36:05 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:36:04 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:36:04 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@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: AQHScLlYCVfM58BMRE+A/OR/DV4RwqFE7O8A///Yv3CAANOygP//oSaQ
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:36:04 +0000
Message-ID: <2e5307bbafeb4f17b9ff50b476981aad@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <87mvepkiag.fsf@chopps.org> <D4AA1E05.983BF%acee@cisco.com> <15933d66e9e3427ea850374610372296@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <D4AAAE86.98591%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4AAAE86.98591%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.84.163]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/LS3lfVmKhrogiZ5un5R5eR4v9l0>
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: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:36:08 -0000
Acee - > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 3:56 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); 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 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! [Les:] Section 3.4.2. Adjacency Formation " Routers operating in auto-configuration mode MUST NOT form adjacencies with routers which are NOT operating in auto- configuration mode. The presence of the Router Fingerprint TLV with the A bit set indicates the router is operating in auto-configuration mode." I do not see that anything further is needed. ?? > > > > >??? > > > >> 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. > [Les:] I do not see that this issue is any more/less severe when operating in autoconfig mode. Manual intervention is required to resolve the issue regardless of mode - the protocol cannot heal itself in this case. All we can do is send out a notification and be smart in the implementation so as to avoid constant adjacency churn. This behavior is required/recommended regardless of autoconfig mode. In fact, it could be argued the problem is more severe for larger networks as the side effects of churn associated with sub-optimal handling of this problem will be far worse in a large network. Interestingly, I do not even see a notification defined for this condition in the MIB (RFC 4444) - perhaps we will do better when defining the YANG data model. :-) This is perhaps a problem worth discussing - but I don't see that it is in any way unique to or related to autoconfig - so adding it to this specification doesn't seem appropriate. Les > 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
- [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-auto-c… Christian Hopps
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Marc Binderberger
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Marc Binderberger
- Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-au… Liubing (Leo)