[Isis-wg] Is ATT bit mandatory?
"Ilya Varlashkin" <Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net> Fri, 02 May 2008 16:40 UTC
Return-Path: <isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: isis-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-isis-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D22028C249;
Fri, 2 May 2008 09:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
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 230A628C164
for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2008 09:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 PdU4Zz-VxMFw for <isis-wg@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 2 May 2008 09:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from softy.ision.net (softy.ision.net [194.163.250.97])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670B73A6C6A
for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 May 2008 09:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from paul.de.easynet.net ([195.180.208.152]
helo=paul.adoffice.de.easynet.net)
by softy.ision.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JryJ1-0005du-9g
for isis-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 02 May 2008 18:40:19 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 18:40:19 +0200
Message-ID: <7000E71D8C525042A815432358B2F1240138D469@paul.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Is ATT bit mandatory?
Thread-Index: AcisczTk04k8LTRCTBqdEyOSX31rtA==
From: "Ilya Varlashkin" <Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net>
To: "IETF IS-IS" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: [Isis-wg] Is ATT bit mandatory?
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, If L1/L2 router is configured to leak all necessary L2 routes into L1, does it still have to set ATT bit? Assuming an implementation that conforms to all relevant IS-IS standards/specifications, will something fundamentally break if ATT bit is not set but there's clear evidence that router must be L1/L2 (e.g. by presence of inter-area routes in its LSP)? I've made lab tests, and it appears I can turn ATT bit off on L1/L2 router and still have necessary connectivity (don't need default route in L1), but I wonder if there are some hidden pitfals in implementing this on life network (besides bugs). Kind regards, iLya _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
- [Isis-wg] Is ATT bit mandatory? Ilya Varlashkin