IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 13 January 2020 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
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 9D78E120946 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:29:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=j7Vn2R70; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=LJrUaDxV
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 b5LW1zPtrYAz for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9EF12093B for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:29:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12834; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1578936549; x=1580146149; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ruDvfQ/psCFe3CnuQp+l+U69ZcpZ4l4DaSINIArZ/d0=; b=j7Vn2R70UdePuyTqDCknflZlz/DzpW/oneJsr0/h0CftyuK552nJkK0R PDd8wF3Roi+2TOq9iowYmzt7+kJ59GSrP7u992BUDlkkJ43L2PWoibaxp nJICL45avX1G9Z/I6TbmUwmUOd3wzCZ/OfDeMi632sfWg+fp7Y3ODwkgX k=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:CnSiDBYTsPSLUKp9Pf1h4Vb/LSx94ef9IxIV55w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20gabRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNMn1NksAKh0olCc+BB1f8KavlbiohFslYW3du/mqwNg5eH8OtL1A=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DfAQB1qBxe/4wNJK1cChsBAQEBAQEBBQEBAREBAQMDAQEBgXuBJS9QBWxYIAQLKoQMg0YDiwWCX5MrhGKCUgNUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEQAIXgWEkOBMCAw0BAQQBAQECAQUEbYU3DIVeAQEBAQMSEQoTAQE3AQ8CAQgRAwEBASgDAgICMBQJCAIEAQ0FCBqDBYF9TQMuAZ9OAoE4iGF1gTKCfgEBBYUgGIIMCYE2jBkagUE/gRABR4IeLj6EHi0eBhCCWjKCLJBNhVeZHAqCN5ZImmyOW5p2AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFpIoFYcBWDJ1AYDYgBg3ODRocNdIEoi3YBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,429,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217";a="404002865"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 13 Jan 2020 17:29:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (xch-rcd-010.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 00DHT89X023226 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:29:08 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:29:07 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:29:07 -0600
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:29:06 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Nbq0P4zq4t5tnu8y8Yh5ivq9zMwPLMjIKjdsSkIOSQb1BAYZVpyOutE0YIjTPS+HzlUDHAgDP8gXgzGeI8FW8lGHH104OHDR3bfNWnerj9WFYEmOoS+/0MM2vEfuYT/5LPt18zmTwvMFuavwyHuVbUPU/4qehWkBfC/WKo48ZdMS80QArF4Mmw4uPbCmD96lqg8fI7Fw91T/n0XCyxgTcZG86yBkgHLNRsD+vTXQ4h700f4TSbAMizL6BGa1+fJIvMHRG1C8bh/clOtCG1Hn83kWpydHsnNPv2bFP/jHkNRREIPOls/GOiRj9GMRsAT+vsedKemdaJFoiIUw+hilTA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ruDvfQ/psCFe3CnuQp+l+U69ZcpZ4l4DaSINIArZ/d0=; b=bOiBTKzAAS+lorbmOlfI/OKmbFBIlbLVoh5lz8LRoFIzvZaDbXd0hQC684HFfsOpjQG4Zm+BpLsSk98dkhungxE3Cucm9W94C3nNSO6Peb2aDP/IiKBtHTxxVeypcgkfCPyYuxXaLhILvZQAOqd09iyhuqtmwkN9OtKH9cFnOc6EqmQoUr/CtO0HCbXyvUR2WSbNbU66uur8m3s6cOzZhJXgKFzepF9UlTwsAhSUlxu2oSZEDsGLXVdxzKjhqU32lOmCDEoJ6cTE8lWrsWAz6llneiHTLRmObnxESei4xI0jcP4ZrA5nwZZBEL2Pz9zaON/YLa1LOej5jwpORKcWaA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ruDvfQ/psCFe3CnuQp+l+U69ZcpZ4l4DaSINIArZ/d0=; b=LJrUaDxVoeXKeOosq25vomoWofxrA4pQVPo+HqLRYFcGni0pE0fWqnzDUZV9967RADkCpqE5zeGZTQp6krxORFWY4TvlWPA6BnyvSw6VhgU/FifAitfED1MD7UBzdhvvlT4baQM2bih4AnLMc6SX40bvY+dG29Xut3TtsPCHOQ4=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1616.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.54.148) by MWHPR11MB1696.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.169.233.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2623.14; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:29:05 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1616.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8590:79e7:31a8:3e14]) by MWHPR11MB1616.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8590:79e7:31a8:3e14%8]) with mapi id 15.20.2623.015; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:29:05 +0000
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "tony.li@tony.li" <tony.li@tony.li>, Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
CC: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS
Thread-Index: AQHVx4VTN9/KPBFNl0i7yjlps25RtKfjf4aAgATLQ4CAAHsvgIAAAOkAgAAWwYA=
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:29:05 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB1616037BD1F2307A5B874FEBC1350@MWHPR11MB1616.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAOj+MMHAbGo+0qd+xwTmymx4MYXGWmHe0p+d2ychQLQWUZ78wA@mail.gmail.com> <FC0F3982-2182-4CFB-8D60-A702C72BB87F@tsinghua.org.cn> <006901d5c75c$c24ad360$46e07a20$@org.cn> <BCA056AC-76B2-45B6-9FD0-61A5EBFC740C@tony.li> <00bb01d5c785$483d91b0$d8b8b510$@org.cn> <32D6BF50-90F8-40C1-81B3-4DA6646F3F6E@tony.li> <00eb01d5c9ec$ea8112d0$bf833870$@org.cn> <6951B8C6-905C-4AC8-B46E-8A708A6AEFE0@tony.li> <442C5535-E3C6-493F-A2F2-A9E9A4749C33@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <442C5535-E3C6-493F-A2F2-A9E9A4749C33@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ginsberg@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0cc:1007::3fb]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9bfa0b77-aff2-4f0e-0cee-08d7984e16e2
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB1696:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB1696389C383F62D557E8D1A9C1350@MWHPR11MB1696.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 028166BF91
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(136003)(199004)(189003)(8936002)(9686003)(110136005)(54906003)(55016002)(81166006)(66446008)(81156014)(66946007)(66556008)(5660300002)(71200400001)(66476007)(7696005)(2906002)(76116006)(8676002)(64756008)(186003)(53546011)(6506007)(86362001)(4326008)(33656002)(478600001)(52536014)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB1696; H:MWHPR11MB1616.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: wSP5rmotXbc9YTStWn4z9tZ08308X5RsQMHi6fA+s19zvQcecD41K4CUSQpgyViDLCgYPCQZaSuDPzXrL7vFzNgwwjiJk4mEkakl2t0k/4mC4+N/gF5yro5NBpIIrDHkYtiiQdWCUMijHhL1UksAHKPU1afz5p67nT2nC7rzG8xrZi+VFRDKElzd2zquhbWQBojY9AZdwD+gQ2n4Dgdhc319LvSl+yk7JmU0DKy9J2iUqUfiSTxK8/wDS5JUjCx9nPBdUtBpQhsHO+U49vLSV5D1PKeEBCV+DbP+K2xTzubAo/pETX07RAktPF0UeKPr58SXy6xLejRsXQFWhHZhRbrzKY9mxY97/SxpdibNh61d1zATsqDGtH7jp0Tr6t/8a9Z267MgvYjmJdmKJbo2r8q3r3PizEWlj82CbQGFqgN/kSeFKbsnOf408v+gQzoA
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR11MB1616037BD1F2307A5B874FEBC1350MWHPR11MB1616namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9bfa0b77-aff2-4f0e-0cee-08d7984e16e2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Jan 2020 17:29:05.2829 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: OTpdE/75x82iZCH9cAUaqgc0O+llPPPy1GbWRJ7cGCKeTvMmFrr1UzFut+Y/yOAX6CXd1PUQ0k1qPAO4dnWWHg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB1696
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.20, xch-rcd-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Scmy5dI9odvOcNG45crI8OWbIQ0>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS
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, 13 Jan 2020 17:29:13 -0000

I agree with Acee that there is no requirement to identify an interface as passive – or (as suggested in this thread) as loopback or tunnel or stub…

Before debating the best encoding for information, it would be sensible to define the use case/requirements.
Simply having an advertisement that identifies an interface type isn’t sufficient to do anything useful IMO.

   Les

From: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 8:03 AM
To: tony.li@tony.li; Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS

Hi Aijun,
I guess the external use case for this is advertisement in BGP-LS for Network Management purposes?? There really isn’t IS-IS requirement to know whether or not an interface is a passive interface.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li<mailto:tony.li@tony.li>>
Date: Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:00 AM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn<mailto:wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com<mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net<mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>, "lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>" <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS


Hi Anjun,


Is it reasonable to put the link attribute information into the “IP Reachability TLV”?
IMHO, such stub link is not the normal links within IGP domain.  Label the related prefix is coming from the passive/stub link seems also acceptable?


Well, a passive interface is really configured so that you advertise the interface’s prefix.  Attaching the data that you want to the associated data seems reasonable to me.

There’s no good IS Neighbor advertisement to attach the sub-TLV to because there is no neighbor.

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email