[spb-isis] SPB-802.1aq Interoperability discussions

Peter Ashwood-Smith <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com> Tue, 21 September 2010 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spb-isis@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spb-isis@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748823A6A89 for <spb-isis@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dOqB9CTgYA7q for <spb-isis@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7A63A69A4 for <spb-isis@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in []) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L9400MAQ4HZQS@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for spb-isis@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:51:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from LapPSmith ([]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L9400MB34HXY7@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for spb-isis@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:51:35 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:51:32 -0400
From: Peter Ashwood-Smith <Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <mailman.0.1285082187.6721.spb-isis@ietf.org>
To: spb-isis@ietf.org
Message-id: <015301cb59c6$6480f240$ba85c10a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thread-index: ActZoEP1j6v1bNo/SmmlOR0Nq1gNJQAJdvMA
Subject: [spb-isis] SPB-802.1aq Interoperability discussions
X-BeenThere: spb-isis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The members of this list will discuss the requirements, functionality and extensions to ISIS to support 802.1aq." <spb-isis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spb-isis>, <mailto:spb-isis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spb-isis>
List-Post: <mailto:spb-isis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spb-isis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spb-isis>, <mailto:spb-isis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:51:44 -0000

Folks, there has been some off list interest in doing some interop testing
of the new TLV formats etc. as given in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-ieee-aq-00 so I'd like to bring
the discussion to the SPB list (which is copied).

Anyway what I'd propose is having a brief discussion on the TLV's we want to
test. I don't see much point in testing the data paths or OA&M as that's all
vanilla IEEE stuff so visual inspections of FIBs and the LSDBs is probably
adequate as a first pass, also means a simple LINUX control plane can run
some tests too easily enough.

Anyway what I'd suggest is SPB NLPID in the hello, standard IS-IS
addressing, Level 1, don't worry about the MCID and TOP digest yet.

Then SPB-B-VID TLV for 4 B-VID/ECT-ALGORITHM tuples, suggest B-VIDs 101-104

Then the SPB-Instance sub-TLV, CIST information ignored, Bridge Priority as
configured. M mode, Sp SourceID same as low 20 bits of box mac. Number of
Trees = 4 and then the VLAN-IDs 101..104 for ECT-ALGORITHMs 1..4 with of
course SPVID = 0.

SPB-LINK metric SUB TLV with METRIC as configured.

SPBM-SERVICE IDENTIFIER TLV with BOX-MAC, base VID chosen from 101-104 and
ISIDs as configured.

Suggest for simplicity we pick 4 ISIDs one per B-VID/ECT for simplicity.
ISIDs 1-4 would seem to make sense and all can be tx & rx.

Anyway the above would make a useful first simple test.

Some options include running an adjacency over a static IP port between
different vendors to avoid shipping equipement around, or we can host
something in Ottawa as many of the interested parties all have sites here
within a few kilometers of each other and any one of our labs could be used
easily I suppose.

Anyway let me know your thoughts on the subject. From my perspective I don't
want to make this a big complicated affair, (at least for a first round),
the changes to IS-IS are pretty simple, the datapaths are out of scope
really as they are ordinary IEEE, mostly its just a check that you got the
computations right for tie breaking/B-VID assignment etc.