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

James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com> Tue, 31 May 2011 17:05 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 82415E088C for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, 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 1a74Yg4xEOj3 for <pppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:05:11 -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 681D9E0882 for <pppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:05:10 -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 p4VH57cl018851 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <pppext@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:05:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4DE51FC3.2070301@workingcode.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:05:07 -0400
From: James Carlson <carlsonj@workingcode.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DCC-Misty-Metrics: carlson; whitelist
Subject: [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: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:05:15 -0000

As part of IETF review, the Routing ADs are looking over
draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-06.  Not too surprising to me -- given
that I still think it's far out of scope -- the text concerning IS-IS
System IDs is causing trouble in that review.  See this thread:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/threads.html#01533

I wish I could leave the worms safely in the can, but it's looking like
that might not be one of the options.

Instead of the reference to Bill Simpson's draft, Stewart Bryant
suggested replacement text like this:

  ISO/IEC 10589 states that it is the responsibility of the routeing
  domain administrative authority to enforce the uniqueness of the
  system ID. In cases where a zero configuration system is
  supplied the system manufacturer MUST install a suitable
  unique identifier at manufacturing time. One way to achieve
  this is for the manufacturer to use a unique IEEE MAC address
  following the allocation procedures normally used in the
  manufacture of an Ethernet interface.

This tosses the issue back into the implementor's lap (which,
incidentally, is exactly where I think the problem belongs), and
suggests an existing and known solution where a MAC identifier may be
allocated for the system itself and used as a global ID to construct the
necessary IS-IS System ID.

For use in this draft, I would alter the wording slightly to indicate
that zero-configuration is strongly preferred for TRILL (as guidance),
and that obtaining a suitable identifier is the implementor's
responsibility, rather than just saying "in cases where."

Would this change fly without breaking consensus?  Or do we have to
start over?

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