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

["Liubing (Leo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Karsten,

Please see replies inline.

From: Karsten Thomann [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 9:35 PM
To: Liubing (Leo)
Cc: [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]]

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

> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> 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.

>

>

>