IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS

"Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Tue, 07 January 2020 01:08 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 243FD1200CE for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 17:08:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 IEnvui5K7WIS for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 17:08:15 -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 AD862120041 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 17:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from WangajPC (unknown [219.142.69.77]) by m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 91B056611EC; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 09:08:08 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Robert Raszuk' <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)'" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, lsr@ietf.org
References: <010801d5c446$29131950$7b394bf0$@org.cn> <DM6PR11MB28424A0E87EBF51C2AFFD00AC13C0@DM6PR11MB2842.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <012b01d5c469$310c7d90$932578b0$@org.cn> <CAOj+MMEGTZ=7qd4=x5w-=gjR2tLvaCie8ePchXpbg2-Kxb9VWw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMEGTZ=7qd4=x5w-=gjR2tLvaCie8ePchXpbg2-Kxb9VWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:08:07 +0800
Message-ID: <012c01d5c4f6$ec79c5a0$c56d50e0$@org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012D_01D5C539.FA9D05A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdXEgCv6OKHWNEW2RoO/BFaspSm7FAAdjOrQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZVktVT0JPQkJCQ0lOQk5PT0hMWVdZKF lBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1kJDhceCFlBWTU0KTY6NyQpLjc#WQY+
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6NBw6Lzo4GTg2ORo8KxUeODMI OhFPCgFVSlVKTkxDSE5CSUJKQklDVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxMWVdZCAFZQUpKT05CNwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a6f7d8b73799373kuws91b056611ec
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/gft9_W07c9N1jP4Gs73og37iRhc>
Subject: [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 01:08:17 -0000

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 <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