IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Tue, 07 January 2020 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 3149B120073 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 02:57:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 euHW3creusWX for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 02:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (m176115.mail.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2209E12001E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 02:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [240.0.0.1] (unknown [213.159.202.56]) by m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 42BC6663935; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 18:56:56 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-B01CEAE7-6466-4AB8-BC6A-05CC055B9949"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 18:56:49 +0800
Message-Id: <FC0F3982-2182-4CFB-8D60-A702C72BB87F@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <CAOj+MMHAbGo+0qd+xwTmymx4MYXGWmHe0p+d2ychQLQWUZ78wA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, lsr@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHAbGo+0qd+xwTmymx4MYXGWmHe0p+d2ychQLQWUZ78wA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZVktVT05MQkJCQ0NOS0NJSU9OWVdZKF lBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1kJDhceCFlBWTU0KTY6NyQpLjc#WQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6MxA6HSo6Hzg0KRkvNiEsGUw# SygKCkJVSlVKTkxDSEJPTUhPTkhLVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkhVSk5CVUlLSVVOTVlXWQgBWUFKSU9ITjcG
X-HM-Tid: 0a6f7fa681d29373kuws42bc6663935
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/gWckrqAygLRr9otck8nS4O5ceyU>
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: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:57:23 -0000

Hi, Robert:
There are situations that we want to distinguish the passive interfaces from the normal interfaces. I will try to write one draft in recent days to describe it and for further discussion.

Thanks in advance.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 18:14, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Aijun,
> 
> Right .. I took your email as an attempt/request to actually advertise passive links in the first place. 
> 
> May we know what difference does it make to you if reachable prefix is part of an active vs passive interface from IGP point of view ? 
> 
> Thx,
> R.
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 2:08 AM Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org..cn> wrote:
>> Hi, Robert:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks for your information.
>> 
>> TLV-22 is used to describe the IS neighbor and the link between them. As for the passive interfaces, there may be no neighbor.
>> 
>> It seems the sub-TLV within this TLV is not the appropriate place to put this information?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> P.S. I changed the thread to reflect the conversion topic.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best Regards.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Aijun Wang
>> 
>> China Telecom
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 发件人: lsr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Robert Raszuk
>> 发送时间: 2020年1月6日 18:58
>> 收件人: Aijun Wang
>> 抄送: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); lsr@ietf.org
>> 主题: Re: [Lsr] 答复: Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>>  
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email