Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy Thu, 25 June 2020 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8703A0FF2; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9BeS8lpcog4E; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D665E3A1006; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k71so304664pje.0; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=0Bccv+KSZmgssqzXPc/YCaepW6z5g1CtnKVSFM87JLw=; b=Meoc0EUsciKTW593j4X5twzXJLmCUnmkTqK1lspNQ8YYjX2ySOOesQXE4b5HvZ4/W+ tPxmFPvngrgAEo6pe9AG8jxbIz8WZl1x55VM4hT4o6FeF5kEJvL9lnZhrN3F+0xuP/1v ltNymvaLLnquWdxq7sNq8TQA1GdLUzGsQxzmRTvfsppcUVKm2GeHuZ2fpOnhBlcUSndr eDBsES9kCiSqM+33g6EWeINlxUMvV9Kfqaiw5Njub5K9e8f1Z8NskXLHkQJ0gcZSq2Xn YSd9CKB5s+pPVFpqLEDhfnDqj2IG+WzhZZ/eBXMUQb1ZLBrDo9nt+RtB3RnsvfOLpVoh kqmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=0Bccv+KSZmgssqzXPc/YCaepW6z5g1CtnKVSFM87JLw=; b=eWYfu5j3RAJRU0+gnZk5a23UJe7phlIVz8A44A4orBPs+QC7NUwzs4c9aKP2ru59ba PL7pDg1IHv//AFBc56mFzQZ5pGzFBxpxq1k0D3JjEmiqTOwY2R0X/P7iTAl843toCsg5 VgLYYOnSJDd2h91M3/iCA+KpzxHX56MsXT/MF3LdHRTqDscH24D2woqQ9VCOZP1lNxWX ZAWA+kJzIpmDUr5MRYTDpSUvUHYhsDipY3naQUNREll+CFApzHPyNRVutJOHyfSHHezx aqCbFr6bSy8QcWAvz7sEbWStIspulFILek1wXanoEqkbrM4h2LxwKkW8GYL4NftgE3WC 55bA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533EvlIM6+jDFP5bmEDfc7U3a/5CHBO54DZEQOyCm58tAk5043jN UahC7uPE96W6vEG28hrp9UM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwm96ApDhCtnB4Wytto0wXqfjdmlQc2P41vdhx3hh3I9FC9RQ7hMDudhZ28aBZaSRMWJ1zvNQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ea82:: with SMTP id x2mr34881168plb.88.1593111854194; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id g3sm2162828pfq.19.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Tony Li <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D982A3BC-EDF3-4B72-95F6-C49F00C96ABF"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:04:11 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Les Ginsberg <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: Hannes Gredler <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:04:19 -0000

Hi Hannes,

Thanks for your comments.  We will propose an alternate encoding.


> On Jun 25, 2020, at 10:47 AM, Hannes Gredler <> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> I do share Les’ concerns on burning top-level 8-bit code point space at this point.
> At this point it is not me to judge wether CAP TLV or GENAPP TLV or something else should be a more appropriate place.
> Please let's have a WG discussion on this.
> Thanks,
> /hannes
>> On 21.06.2020, at 18:50, <> wrote:
>> Les,
>>> We don’t have to resolve this now.
>>> One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG adoption is achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation request – and as one of the Designated Experts I wanted to share my concerns sooner rather than later.
>> I appreciate that.  Do others share Les’ perspective on the relative tradeoffs?  Especially our other Desginated Experts?
>>> Would this argue for advertising “this is a boundary circuit” in pseudo-node LSPs for boundary circuits rather than advertising “inside” on all inside pseudo-nodes?
>>> You could do it that way.  It inverts the semantics and inverts the deployment.  Logically, it should have the same effect.  However, it then is seen by outside nodes.  Since they need not support Area Proxy, this seemed like a riskier approach, thus we opted for marking inside pseudonodes.
>>> [Les:] My point was largely motivated by the statement in the draft:
>>> “Area Proxy Boundary multi-access circuits (i.e.  Ethernets in LAN
>>>    mode) with multiple Inside Edge Routers on them are not supported.”
>>> So it seems advantageous to be able to prevent this from happening – which requires some signaling on the circuit in question.
>> I think that the case that you’re concerned about is already easily detected.  Recall that an Inside Edge router will generate IIH’s onto a boundary circuit using the Proxy system ID.  Thus, if an Inside Edge router receives an IIH with a source address of it’s own proxy system id, then it has encountered this issue.
>> Tony
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lsr mailing list
>> <>