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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Thu, 08 December 2016 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F75129B27; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:27:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.417
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id REdyGO9Pp8pd; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DBCA129AD4; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:24:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=30300; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1481235891; x=1482445491; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=LiWlM06ebSZqiDlIpi/zhfFnYylHpfNY1Y1YeyEsQTI=; b=MSY6Pebh8GWsnoVVqhRIqT4yoAZNJyXAus21bgv6UjTqjBfHCkfAZJ9w Gzdh2ZvoQMWD+SrHu+KIoKBmL+WayzdsTkXIRzcDTlrgU2XvWbPKjmN/G teYhidlW0bKjhwT0sVncbc4/7hl4Um12xCrANrIgMrKujzQXRFOEwzPDm w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,321,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="356620105"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Dec 2016 22:24:50 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uB8MOoBI006102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:24:50 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:24:49 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:24:49 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: Alia Atlas <>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06
Thread-Index: AQHSUZM57pcD7NXCUUeJhPNLXH07S6D+k5MQgABwVID//5uZMA==
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:24:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_fce0125440ad462d806afe1ec4b4a111XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Christian Hopps <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:27:14 -0000

Alia –

Yes – I am in the same boat – which is why I am asking the authors to provide some input on this point. Of course if anyone else has input I am happy to hear from you as well.
If we don’t have real deployments we are unlikely to get the kind of feedback essential to producing a specification that actually works.


From: Alia Atlas []
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 2:20 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Przygienda; Christian Hopps;;
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06


I don't personally.  I'm still poking and hearing there is the problem.


On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <<>> wrote:
Alia –

I am aware of the RTGWG work – I am asking do we have reason to believe that there will be devices running IS-IS that require this support.
If you have some information on this I would be interested to see it.


From: Alia Atlas [<>]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Tony Przygienda; Christian Hopps;<>;<>

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


On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <<>> wrote:
I think the bigger question – from the standpoint of WG adoption – is do we really believe there is a need for this extension?

There was a time when IS-IS was being considered as the homenet protocol – that ship seems to have sailed.
So the question becomes do we really think there is a deployment where these extensions will be needed? If the answer to that is yes, then I am convinced that the direction this draft has taken is the right one and we should then do the diligence necessary to finish the job.
But if the answer is “no” then this does not seem a worthwhile use of our time.

Have you been following the discussion in RTGWG around
and<>  ?

The issues around IPv6 multihoming are not primarily related to homenet - though homenet also has those same issues.


David (and/or others) – can you comment on this?


From: Isis-wg [<>] On Behalf Of Tony Przygienda
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 11:25 AM
To: Christian Hopps
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG adoption of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06

I sent good amount of comments on the draft a while ago. While I support adoption I think those need addressing to ensure correctness of the draft ... tony

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:27 AM, <<>> wrote:
Hi Folks,

The authors of draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-06 have requested
WG adoption. Please indicate whether you support adoption of this work
(some folks already have on the list). This is a 2 week call ending
Thursday, November 24th, 2016.

Can the authors also reply to this mail indicating whether they know of
any IPR related to this draft?


Isis-wg mailing list<>

We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.
—Robert Wilensky

Isis-wg mailing list<>