Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption Call for draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap

Hello Philip,

that is interesting!

> or it is defining something entirely different?

I would say this is very much the same, with the only difference that the new 
draft is more about current protocol gaps and not so much about CLNP. But the 
principle seems the same.

> might fit in with, or cause problems with this
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-auto-encap-03
> https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.7712-201009-I/en
> is it dangerous to have two mechanisms to advertise the same thing?

Good question to the authors of the new draft. Do they want to go for an 
exclusive either-or?  Should IS-IS implementations be able to support both?

We should have known there is nothing really new under the sun (anymore) :-)

Regards, Marc

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:30:18 +0000, Philip Christian wrote:
> Please can people explain how
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap/
> 
> might fit in with, or cause problems with this
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-auto-encap-03
> 
> which was adopted by the ITU-T and appears to be still very much part of 
> IT-T G.7712.
> The PDF of that document is available here
> 
> https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.7712-201009-I/en
> 
> and you probably want to go to page 46.
> 
> or it is defining something entirely different?
> 
> The ITU-T version defines an "Encapsulation capability TLV" with code 16 
> decimal, whereas draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap says "routers advertises 
> their supported encapsulation type(s) by advertising a new sub-TLV of the 
> IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV"
> 
> is it dangerous to have two mechanisms to advertise the same thing?
> 
> also it seems a shame when TLV 16 is already defined as using subTLVs and 
> so could easily be used for the new purposes that xu-isis-encapsulation-cap 
> suggests.
> 
> Apologies if I have misunderstood something; I have been away from this for 
> a long time.
> 
> regards, Philip Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/12/15 03:53, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
>> /You are right the hyperlink is WRONG../
>> 
>> //
>> 
>> /I support
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap/   (the
>> right link)/
>> 
>> //
>> 
>> /Thanks,/
>> 
>> /Himanshu/
>> 
>> //
>> 
>> *From:*Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Wunan 
>> (Eric)
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2015 10:21 PM
>> *To:* Christian Hopps; isis-wg@ietf.org list
>> *Subject:* Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption Call for
>> draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap
>> 
>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>> Is it only for me or other people also same that I was redirected to
>> auto-cfg draft using link below? Or this is the implication for your
>> crush on that draft?J
>> 
>> Anyway, I think the scenario described in [5512] is still valid in IS-IS
>> networks and It would be useful, so I support it.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> *发件人**:*Christian Hopps [mailto:chopps@chopps.org]
>> *发送时间:* 2015年11月27日 22:35
>> *收件人:* isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list
>> *主题:* [Isis-wg] WG Adoption Call for draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap
>> 
>> Hi Folks,
>> 
>> The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xu-isis-encapsulation-cap/
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-isis-auto-conf/>
>> 
>> as a working group document.
>> 
>> Please indicate support or no-support for taking on this work.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Chris.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> Isis-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg