IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

tony.li@tony.li Fri, 10 January 2020 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <tony1athome@gmail.com>
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 22365120914 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:28:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4WpQtxJNDQ6e for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1044.google.com (mail-pj1-x1044.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1044]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B868612091A for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:28:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1044.google.com with SMTP id r67so1174143pjb.0 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:28:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NrIqkiPc+l0YV6WpIveqw/zlT673WO2wtRAnDoSLMTU=; b=kAIWR1E61w54+KsqiRFlWlVv+Gw4sy/fwkstSOzi3pMeVcNDz7WI/F9XUq+aZp1AXW M3CliTilspEHZC4QSBUHYh6ZS7PlUPAzYR1iNkqOhhMKodkYyQRMU4HYGsf051HAFaYj hEP5eHU+j2b1KEvGpQU66mFRBBLcI4clzyK6IWxBcEd22XYoEyY3CBNztj/2Rmcy4jZ7 yRgJnWZ27HPcZIi5EQZj5abZdchZoEU217vD0sv4t/zQgKnEEUFvni+w14D0dPPjj2Nx UIVmH3s0c9wuxfu9Y65YK87gnjUYIO4ygIfdY197ED0j8r0IcE0fty3c7WBRQ1bAB1ig PBig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=NrIqkiPc+l0YV6WpIveqw/zlT673WO2wtRAnDoSLMTU=; b=k1w0jNxKwbz0iymqkkq+1QaTOJUGcIReVYu5VUTJMURlVr1ULCsFRQjHACF9CN5yCy uP6M+s2XGB66B0DGzuGBK6mwE78O20LHzwiuwY41FPThlFIIsx6vzRMDJ0/hpDzOVtTi 2n9+XZqXQsARFHQ5BljXtL9iEtfaaiS7eRC+wfquMJbTPzQCS1IXkA2UKM+pOOA75Z9m h6DYOuPZVn+sHw41yLi2l+w6+wrc1m/X11BsO+Yc2nCtvNiR35wFF91XSK/5vXk8M+y0 Hwfxx8DE+mCCMELAUpiK8u5k8eA/e/4r3njgOey6nFyU4JbtqnJ673cgvn2h1t3YtRMS aWmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUBayvouBh7kkWyOfl+Zz1J0xgxCgcgmrxsrFjF2NMOPBVZnWqg iR7omRTZX8tLkKpOhJdz6Ak=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwTdattL9xaIqqzKkTltoDVgCWOxdBfkkqJO4qHbJAqGGRad5CDySo8V9PuJHPqgNyUgBJvPg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bb93:: with SMTP id m19mr5380828pls.310.1578673680003; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.4.24] (c-67-169-103-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.103.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t187sm3494556pfd.21.2020.01.10.08.27.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: tony.li@tony.li
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMEX7fTkodiUeVHK5LNNRsSyk++UYWM_wYZEdm6H0tnFpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:27:57 -0800
Cc: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, lsr@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D4AB9801-7E92-42B5-830C-3BC2E1BCEF5B@tony.li>
References: <CAOj+MMHAbGo+0qd+xwTmymx4MYXGWmHe0p+d2ychQLQWUZ78wA@mail.gmail.com> <FC0F3982-2182-4CFB-8D60-A702C72BB87F@tsinghua.org.cn> <006901d5c75c$c24ad360$46e07a20$@org.cn> <BCA056AC-76B2-45B6-9FD0-61A5EBFC740C@tony.li> <00bb01d5c785$483d91b0$d8b8b510$@org.cn> <32D6BF50-90F8-40C1-81B3-4DA6646F3F6E@tony.li> <CAOj+MMEX7fTkodiUeVHK5LNNRsSyk++UYWM_wYZEdm6H0tnFpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/sSPtTd53Yb9CBMfKrm7j8lO6vBY>
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: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:28:04 -0000

Hi Robert,

> I agree with you that essentially this is a link property (hence my earlier hint towards 5029) so it makes it at least two of us recommending direction towards 5029 now ;)


Is that rough consensus? ;-)


> While we are at this perhaps it would be also useful to be able to differentiate reachability on stub links vs virtual local interfaces. Today in some implementations they are advertised after marking them as passive int.


If we want to define another attribute for a loopback link vs a stub link vs a tunnel vs …. , I would support that direction.

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email