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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *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); [e-mail]
> *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.
>
>
>