IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pppext] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID

James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com> Wed, 01 June 2011 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773C2E0931 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uiDv5sOaRxnt for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carlson.workingcode.com (carlsonj-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1d9::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B76CE0934 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.50.23.149] (gate.abinitio.com [65.170.40.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by carlson.workingcode.com (8.14.2+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p51Fome2009364 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:50:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4DE65FD8.1090702@workingcode.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:50:48 -0400
From: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stbryant@cisco.com
References: <4DE51FC3.2070301@workingcode.com> <BANLkTikrJ217TLvKz61mCBcacgQUs317MA@mail.gmail.com> <4DE63C68.9070102@gmail.com> <4DE6528B.7070501@workingcode.com> <4DE659C1.2050306@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DE659C1.2050306@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DCC-Misty-Metrics: carlson; whitelist
Cc: PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org>, rbridge@postel.org, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:50:59 -0000

Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
>> All that said, I don't really care.  This is a tempest in a teapot.  I
>> can mash together both texts if the Routing ADs are willing to accept a
>> passing reference here to a draft that, in their words, hasn't even been
>> considered by the IS-IS community.
> James,
> 
> I believe that any departure from the text in ISO10589 needs
> to be discussed in the ISIS WG.

"Any" departure?  No matter how subservient?  That seems as inflexible
as the other end of this spectrum.

If I suggested text like this, would it require ISIS WG discussion, and,
if so, what's the chance that this discussion would terminate in a
positive way?

   3. An implementation that has only PPP links might have no
      Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) that can form an IS-IS
      System ID.  Resolving that issue is outside the scope of this
      document, however it is strongly RECOMMENDED that all TRILL
      implementations have at least one zero-configuration mechanism to
      obtain a valid System ID.  Refer to ISO/IEC 10589 regarding System
      ID uniqueness requirements.  Alternative solutions to this issue
      may also be defined in the future; see [8] for an example.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj@workingcode.com>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email