Re: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Mach -

Good to know you are there. :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mach Chen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:06 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Uma Chunduri; ISIS-WG
> Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-
> rfc4971bis-00.txt
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> Thanks for the clear explanation!
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 7:37 AM
> > To: Uma Chunduri; ISIS-WG
> > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Mach Chen
> > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
> >
> > (Not sure why Mach's email address keeps disappearing from the TO list
> > - hopefully he is receiving copies via the WG alias)
> 
> Yes, I am watching :-)
> 
> >
> > Uma -
> >
> > Mach and I have had some discussions about doing a BIS for RFC 5316
> > because TLV 141 has a similar issue since its format stipulates a 32
> > bit router ID. If that were to happen I think that is the best place
> > to clarify the content of sub-TLVs 11/12.
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Note  that we don't really have a use case for sub-TLV 11(IPv4 Router
> > ID) since that Router ID can be encoded in the fixed part of TLV 141/242.
> 
> Regarding sub-TLV 11, when sent with the 32 bit router ID, it is indeed a bit
> redundant.
> Thinking more about it, there may be a use case that two IPv4
> networks(ASes) connected by a IPv6 network (AS), for the IPv6 AS, the
> ASBRs support dual stack. To setup an end-to-end IPv4 TE LSP, the ASBRs to
> need to advertise their IPv4 TE Router ID within the domain. Is this case
> valid?

[Les:] My point is that if you need to "advertise" the IPv4 Router ID you simply put it in the fixed part of TLV 242 (and/or TLV 141). You don't need to use the sub-TLV.
If you also want to advertise the IPv6 Router ID in the same TLV you then use the IPv6 Router ID sub-TLV i.e., nothing in 4971bis prohibits you from sending IPv6 Router ID sub-TLV when the router id in TLV 242 is a valid IPv4 Router ID (NOT 0.0.0.0).

   Les

> 
> Best regards,
> Mach
> 
> >
> > Note also that to resolve the TLV 141 issue we need to define the
> > equivalent of TLV242/sub-TLV 12 for TLV 141.
> >
> >    Les
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 4:04 PM
> > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); ISIS-WG
> > > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > >
> > > Les,
> > >
> > > In-line [Uma]:
> > >
> > > --
> > > Uma C.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:51 AM
> > > To: Uma Chunduri; ISIS-WG
> > > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > >
> > > Uma -
> > >
> > > Thanx for the comments.
> > >
> > > If you read RFC 5316 Section 3.2 I think it is clear that the TLV
> > > 242 sub-TLVs defined there are meant to advertise what is in TLVs
> 134/140.
> > > [Uma]:  Loosely yes, but it really gets murky  if we see 3.3.4 and 3.3.5.
> > >
> > > If you think that RFC 5316 is not explicit enough we can discuss the
> > > best way to clarify that. I am not sure that rfc4971bis is the best
> > > place to do that - but we can certainly discuss.
> > >
> > > [Uma]:  It's not that explicit, IMO. I am sure you are thinking of
> > > the implications from 5316 PoV if we make it explicit?
> > > Like v4, it's too good to clarify non-TE situation with IPv6 too.
> > >
> > >    Les
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 11:43 AM
> > > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); ISIS-WG
> > > > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > > > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > > > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In various contexts this hole has been discussed multiple times
> > > > and today we have to have an IPv4 router ID have to be configured
> > > > even for IPv6-only deployments.
> > > > I see the proposed text is a reasonable and perhaps less
> > > > disruptive way to address this .
> > > >
> > > > May be it's good disambiguate further this should be tied to TLV
> > > > 140 (RFC 6119); meaning the  sub-TLV 12 (RFC 5316) should be
> > > > matching to TLV 140 if both are present.
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > --
> > > > Uma C.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Les
> > > > Ginsberg
> > > > (ginsberg)
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:04 PM
> > > > To: ISIS-WG
> > > > Cc: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
> > > > Subject: [Isis-wg] FW: New Version Notification for
> > > > draft-ginsberg-isis- rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > > >
> > > > Folks -
> > > >
> > > > We have just submitted a bis draft for RFC 4971 to define how to
> > > > use TLV 242 on a router which supports only IPv6 (has no IPv4
> addresses).
> > > >
> > > > The draft is identical to the original RFC except for:
> > > >
> > > > 1)New text at the beginning of Section 3 defining how to use the
> > > > TLV when no IPv4 Router ID is present
> > > >
> > > > 2)References have been updated
> > > >
> > > > Please let us know of any questions or comments.
> > > >
> > > >    Les (on behalf of Stefano and Mach)
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:59 PM
> > > > To: Mach Chen; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Les Ginsberg
> > > > (ginsberg); Stefano Previdi (sprevidi); Les Ginsberg (ginsberg);
> > > > Mach Chen
> > > > (Guoyi)
> > > > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > > > draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > > > has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the
> > > > IETF repository.
> > > >
> > > > Name:		draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis
> > > > Revision:	00
> > > > Title:		IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router Info
> > > > Document date:	2015-10-07
> > > > Group:		Individual Submission
> > > > Pages:		9
> > > > URL:
> > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis-
> > > > rfc4971bis-00.txt
> > > > Status:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis/
> > > > Htmlized:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc4971bis-00
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Abstract:
> > > >    This document defines a new optional Intermediate System to
> > > >    Intermediate System (IS-IS) TLV named CAPABILITY, formed of
> multiple
> > > >    sub-TLVs, which allows a router to announce its capabilities within
> > > >    an IS-IS level or the entire routing domain.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
> > > >
> > > > The IETF Secretariat
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Isis-wg mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg