Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS-autoconf-04 submitted //FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-isis-auto-conf-04.txt

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Mon, 08 June 2015 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
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 A35671A1A32 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 03:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Z5XR9Bx7YfXB for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 03:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85B711A038E for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 03:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BXC82574; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:41:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 11:41:32 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.186]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 18:41:25 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Karsten Thomann <karsten_thomann@linfre.de>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] ISIS-autoconf-04 submitted //FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-isis-auto-conf-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQmsUvhOb/9lHMUk2S32rA0gaCAZ2azvEAgAKhW7CAAY9YAIADd0+w
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:41:24 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45A67929F3@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45A678E17E@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <2366384.fmjLvuEOoo@linne> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45A679225E@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <2450780.fSPWS0PjFC@linne>
In-Reply-To: <2450780.fSPWS0PjFC@linne>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.117]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45A67929F3nkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/it-ZGWIpASxszEa4XPvl09pEpgI>
Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS-autoconf-04 submitted //FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-isis-auto-conf-04.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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 08 Jun 2015 10:41:40 -0000

Hi Karsten,

Please see replies inline.

From: Karsten Thomann [mailto:karsten_thomann@linfre.de]
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 9:35 PM
To: Liubing (Leo)
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS-autoconf-04 submitted //FW: New Version Notification for draft-liu-isis-auto-conf-04.txt


Hi,



please see inline.



Am Freitag, 5. Juni 2015, 06:44:47 schrieb Liubing:

> Hi Karsten,

>

> Thanks for your review and comments. Please see replies inline.

>

> From: Karsten Thomann [mailto:karsten_thomann@linfre.de]

> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 5:36 AM

> To: isis-wg@ietf.org<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>

> Cc: Liubing (Leo)

> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] ISIS-autoconf-04 submitted //FW: New Version

> Notification for draft-liu-isis-auto-conf-04.txt

>

>

> Hi,

>

>

>

> some comments after reading the draft:

>

>

>

> I'm not really convinced that this will really be implemented in a home

> network or small enterprise networks, as ISIS isn't a protocol widely

> supported on that platforms.

>

> I was thinking more about shortest path bridging switch autodiscovery, but

> this is only my own opinion.

>

>

>

> [Bing] I agree ISIS is not widely supported on small devices nowadays. But I

> think it might has the potential in the future.

>

> Actually, In Homenet the ISIS is already in the short list for their routing

> protocol choice

> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison/). And

> there is also some operator showed explicit requirement for ISIS in home

> routers.

>

>

>

> Furthermore, the scope might not only limit to home/enterprise scenarios.

> Maybe the operators would find this auto-conf tool is also benefit for them

> one day:)

I didn't wanted to start a real discussion, only express my personal concern that it is unlikely to be supported in home networks, but likely in other areas where ISIS has advantages against OSPF.



[Bing] Expression and discussion is always good:) Thanks.





>

> Regarding 3.3.2:

>

> What is exactly the duplication resolution, if the NET is used by an ISIS

> Router not capable of autoconfig?

>

> In my opinion the device which is auto config capable MUST recalculate its

> NET, if the other router does not advertise a Router-Fingerprint TLV.

>

> [Bing] The autoconfig should be a dedicated ISIS process that it won't be

> mixed with the non-autoconf routers. This is prevented by the

> Authentication TLV as described in 3.4.1.

Yes and no, the draft uses a MUST for the ability to change the password, and there are possible cases where it is indended by design to use somewhere a link between a autoconf based network and the not autoconf network...



I my opinion it's a bit weak argument to not specify that behavior explicitly.



[Bing] I think it's good to explicitly specify the behavior.

But I'd prefer the behavior to be abandoning the LSP rather than recalculating its NET. In this case, the router without a Router-Fingerprin TLV just could not joint in the autoconf process, even if the authentication TLV is correct.

How do you think about it?



Best regards,

Bing



>

>

> I'm not able to find a similar approach for the OSPF RFC, as it seems to

> have the same problem.

>

>

>