IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] 答复: Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 06 January 2020 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E6A120180 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 02:57:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mdEPcBgZra8O for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 02:57:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x832.google.com (mail-qt1-x832.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3397F120120 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 02:57:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x832.google.com with SMTP id w47so42144127qtk.4 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 02:57:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8FMeILp9ikWRwvU3oca5O0/A7zKr+esN7h/dNcO/mZI=; b=AKo8cNzeGjKGGv/FqZF+O94WbCg8MnG91ZyNP+7dapKrRT5sFWhqT1tEBPLhai8rTj hD4FoD/2lfpw44XDl+kCzqUffwxQEXw/KJUoCdVQsH1iVzwdsSnD2Pi/wyAEqGTSk9tQ 8xsMwfBty0kBOgMnFEPH3qwuZCgiwVtHlUUiDn/E3zbP4/hp7GTSuD64+VxQD6M19/91 EQOpsIFKPw3wa0m0Px9Guj5+hhQMwge/Ii7ONTdSrwX4K5qIr3nPJ9cyl/17QMhlj4eT d+zk4xFqFsWm6e3V77HpFDe5lqD+cbdy5A4A58NI4JPWRHpRbpAN/80shcOSGatXxM1a bAPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8FMeILp9ikWRwvU3oca5O0/A7zKr+esN7h/dNcO/mZI=; b=Ci87lSCHOS2xKZSCSL6IVxqWbfEZOeNityQDZPtHiPo+mfp/QpgO3zvkfm2RD/V7LO XwL8tDPxxltO1MxHkLpphs9DVzUH7Ge3QPyZIRWjxRgmW4UFjh7Y4jTobH9utK2R9X04 VNph9bCpg1vQc6yd5tXVaN73/eb2giMayXIotpMbK2y1ajhDZHcvoUqUBRT4Ccx8VL7S MhDlyXj/gDZexq+4kB0sd5IO7UK+I21oe6rVoRGzGQrJ7klO4BhxUY5/99PjPcu8F0SG ZOlKYEBCia/BpgCOeCa+g2Nli98UzLQM+3BQLwrGZFDVQgQhjaArQyxD+CBVmiAGr0z7 N6Cg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUm9NUgOAkxCtT9sTL6w4p3tMoxuyl3m04xqzjuwHVXgjsKYAU0 vJiKjuHy3DTDsrlP/9xiID5EVI6Bb2sBldKpxBCgEg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUOevTuY9kNGbcD1qdgiBIVI6Db2XUBJVnqliOYoJHaA0dmj40ywI5368e4VOImQk3NfvByKxxoc2WLWvmOw8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7a70:: with SMTP id w16mr73567874qtt.154.1578308268332; Mon, 06 Jan 2020 02:57:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <010801d5c446$29131950$7b394bf0$@org.cn> <DM6PR11MB28424A0E87EBF51C2AFFD00AC13C0@DM6PR11MB2842.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <012b01d5c469$310c7d90$932578b0$@org.cn>
In-Reply-To: <012b01d5c469$310c7d90$932578b0$@org.cn>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 11:57:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMEGTZ=7qd4=x5w-=gjR2tLvaCie8ePchXpbg2-Kxb9VWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, lsr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ae4125059b7687f9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/BiWtDECDjJK0vzbL2NHuDCcOImo>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] 答复: Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 10:57:51 -0000

Aijun,


> We just want to distinguish the passive interfaces from other normal
> interfaces within ISIS domain.  It seems that the “Attribute Flags” that
> described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7794#section-2.1 is the most
> appropriate place to extend to carry such information.
>

Really ?

IMO much better place is to define new sub-TLV of TLV-22 and mark it there
as passive link.

Ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5029

Now more interesting perhaps is to find out how ISIS is supposed to react
to such information. Or is the intention to carry it just as an opaque info
say for show commands use only ?

Thx,
R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email