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

Hi, Les, Robert and other experts within LSR:

We have submitted the draft that related to the passive interface attribute, please review it at  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-00

If you are interested, we are also welcome you as the co-author to put forward it together.

Any comments are welcome.

Thanks in advance.

Best Regards.

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

发件人: lsr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Aijun Wang
发送时间: 2020年1月7日 18:57
收件人: Robert Raszuk
抄送: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS

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 <mailto: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 <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