Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt
"Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" <vimoreno@cisco.com> Wed, 05 May 2010 21:46 UTC
Return-Path: <vimoreno@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6233A6A47 for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2010 14:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28QYCb9O8VYI for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2010 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2EC3A6D2D for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2010 14:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAPaD4UurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACBPpwTcaUKmWKFEwSDPg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.52,336,1270425600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="125322175"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2010 21:45:59 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o45LjxOP015668; Wed, 5 May 2010 21:45:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.153]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 5 May 2010 14:45:59 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CAEC9C.5901BFC2"
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 14:45:56 -0700
Message-ID: <8874F6219396A04CA291C90CCD7F9C070CE88927@xmb-sjc-213.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7197B78D-D549-42E6-ABE7-0F5814E0C6B5@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt
thread-index: AcrsZv9k886vkBYRS7Sb5b9Iyn39egADeEPQ
References: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD4F9AAE46AB@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7197B78D-D549-42E6-ABE7-0F5814E0C6B5@cisco.com>
From: "Victor Moreno (vimoreno)" <vimoreno@cisco.com>
To: david.i.allan@ericsson.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2010 21:45:59.0749 (UTC) FILETIME=[59B3CF50:01CAEC9C]
Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org, "Martina Beitat (mbeitat)" <mbeitat@cisco.com>, "Ben Basler (bbasler)" <bbasler@cisco.com>, "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <lufang@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 05 May 2010 21:46:28 -0000
Hi David, The intent is to open the technology for broad implementation and with it the addressable market and vendor opportunity. In this vein, the goal is to avoid overlap in the future use of the TLV/codepoint space by having the ISIS WG's use of these TLVs formally documented, fully disclosed and (hopefully) acknowledged/agreed upon. Rather than seeing an early implementation as a competitive threat, I would look at it as an opportunity to capitalize on the existing ramp-up investment/learning curve and reduce your time to market, costs and overall risk of a solution like OTV. It is important that there is an authoritative registry of TLVs and codepoints so that conflicts are avoided. I think as a WG that can be achieved and it is far from useless information. There is a draft submitted explaining what to do with these TLVs for OTV. If it is not satisfactory, it can be improved, but that is a task for a different WG. The request from the ISIS WG is simple: document the TLVs/codepoints formally and in a timely manner. In the same way as OTV leverages TLVs that were originally conceived for TRILL, there is potential for the additional TLVs to play in other solutions beyond OTV. So beyond this tactical argument, my opinion is that these TLVs could be strategically generalized and therefore belong in the WG. We are coming to the WG because the TLVs will be used in a shipping implementation, they are being disclosed to the community and this information needs to be discussed and documented. Mine is but one opinion, it is ultimately up to the WG, but we are disclosing information that has an impact on future activities in the ISIS space. I would think the WG wants to do the right thing and accommodate for progress and innovation while maintaining control of the TLV and codepoint allocation landscape. Regards, -v From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> Date: May 5, 2010 4:58:47 AM PDT To: "Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)" <dhrao@cisco.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt Hi Dhananjaya: I'm not sure what you are clarifiying...other than this is a proprietary technology and you want to document it in standards. Fine, there is a process, which to date has been circumvented. The motivation for standardization is to broaden the addressable market for a technology. But when I look at this situation and your remarks as a competitor, what I see is: 1) You already have at least an 18 month implementation lead on any competitior, anyone choosing to build this starting now would likely be 3 years behind you by the time they could ship product. Under the circumstances I doubt ANYONE is rushing out to interoperate with you. 2) You seem to think your proprietary technology should appear in a standards track document providing you with the alleged cachet of peer review and ultimately a real RFC to point to. IMO that is a significant marketing advantage as it produces the illusion of it being an industry initiative when in fact it isn't. Ironically all it WILL be is a meaningless information schema. There is no guarantee a document will exist that will ever tell you what to do with it, except by mining expired drafts, which means it is not really a living technology. What IANA would reference in allocating the code points is a good question. 3) If the WG actually requires demonstrated interoperability to get to RFC, for the reasons outlined in 1 the rest of us likely will be held up waiting for you to produce a competitor. And when there is no standards track document defining WHAT to do with the TLVs, what constitutes interoperability? So WHY the IETF should grant you a fast track to broadening the addressable market for your proprietary technology, allow OTV to gate process for legitimate standards initiatives, and dignifying OTV as if it was a product of the IETF completely escapes me. Why you should think this draft is an appropriate vehicle to document a part of your proprietary technology is either incredibly naieve or incredibly disingenuous... Meanwhile the rest of us expect a level playing field... My 2 cents D -----Original Message----- From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:45 PM To: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt Hi folks, We're just catching up on the discussions on the mailing list regarding the L2 IS-IS draft-ietf-isis-layer2-04.txt. As the authors of OTV, we'd like to clarify any doubts or concerns regarding the extensions used by OTV. Briefly, OTV uses the L2 IS-IS extensions being defined to provide a solution for interconnecting datacenter networks. An I-D describing the solution has been recently published at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hasmit-otv-00. OTV shares along with TRILL/802.1aq several of the PDU/TLVs that have been defined in this draft. There are of course a few additional sub-TLVs defined specifically for OTV: - A couple of hello extensions to advertise L2 site membership and capabilities. - A group membership sub-TLV to advertise multicast source information. The solution is already being deployed in several enterprise networks and a final product with this solution is shipping soon. Given the multiple technologies using L2 IS-IS, we'd like to ensure the extensions and codepoints are published in a common document to aid interoperable implementations. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, -Dhananjaya (for the authors) A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF. Title : Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2 Systems Author(s) : A. Banerjee, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt Pages : 60 Date : 2010-04-30 This document specifies the IS-IS extensions necessary to support multi-link IPv4 and IPv6 networks, as well as to provide true link state routing to any protocols running directly over layer 2. While supporting this concept involves several pieces, this document only describes extensions to IS-IS. We leave it to the systems using these IS-IS extensions to explain how the information carried in IS-IS is used. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt> _______________________________________________ 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
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… John E Drake
- [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-05.txt Internet-Drafts
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Bragg, Nigel
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Peter Ashwood-Smith
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Fedyk, Donald (Don)
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Hasmit Grover
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Peter Ashwood-Smith
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Hasmit Grover
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Paul Unbehagen
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… David Allan I
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Ralph Droms
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… John E Drake
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Ralph Droms
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Fedyk, Donald (Don)
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Peter Ashwood-Smith
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Victor Moreno (vimoreno)
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… David Allan I
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… David Allan I
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… David Allan I
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Fedyk, Donald (Don)
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… David Allan I
- Re: [Isis-wg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-isis-layer2-0… Donald Eastlake