Re: [Isis-wg] WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06

David Lamparter <> Tue, 18 July 2017 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DC9131A8C for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rdsa2W2NMPTq for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a07:2ec0:2185::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF71D131945 for <>; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from equinox by with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1dXOus-003vuK-4k; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:35:42 +0200
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:35:42 +0200
From: David Lamparter <>
To: "" <>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
Message-ID: <20170718093542.GL773745@eidolon>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:35:47 -0000

Hello IS-IS folks,

so, I've unfortunately dropped the ball on this (had some health issues,
but really I'm just bad at IETF interactions).  I'd like to apologize
for that and am certainly working to improve.

Having just sat through a v6ops presentation of Microsoft's setup for
their enterprise cloud products relying on multihomed IPv6 setups with
distinct source prefixes pushed to clients, I'm re-motivated that this
is a draft worth pushing to RFC -- this is after similar signaling from
Hence, question #1:  I strongly believe we have the input there that
this will see deployment in IS-IS in enterprise setups.  Certainly not
all of them, but enough to be significant.  Les, does this address your
concerns on actual deployment?  (Does anyone else have similar

After that, question #2 would be - what state is this draft actually in
now?  Should I ask for WG adoption again?  As far as I can tell
responses were along "support", "support + address feedback" and
"scepticism on whether it'll actually be deployed".  I didn't see any
flat-out disagreement.

And, finally, #3, I (still, gah) have some pending edits addressing some
feedback Tony raised;  correlated with previous question, I'm not sure
whether I should just repost it as individual draft ASAP?  (and/or
how/whether this interacts with the adoption call.

[I guess the latter 2 are questions for the chairs, but I'll happy about
all input ;)]

Thanks for any help,