Tony –

Thanx for the quick response.

Putting the Inside Node TLV aside for the moment, it would seem to me to be 
advantageous (in a modest way) to have all information relating to Area Proxy 
contained in one advertisement. Using Router Capabilities TLV would accomplish 
Your concern about “burdening” the Router Capabilities TLV seems unwarranted.
Every capability currently defined comes with additional information.
Multiple Router Capability TLVs are allowed (indeed even required to support 
different flooding scopes) – so TLV space is not limited.

Returning to Inside Node TLV, I share your concern about advertising Router 
Capabilities TLV in pseudo-node LSP. But what does it mean to advertise the 
Inside Node TLV in a pseudo-node LSP?
Presumably you need some capability indicator because even on boundary circuits 
the DIS will use the native systemid rather than the proxy systemid and 
therefore you cannot tell based on pseudonode-id alone what type of circuit 
this is.

Would this argue for advertising “this is a boundary circuit” in pseudo-node 
LSPs for boundary circuits rather than advertising “inside” on all inside 

And do you need the “boundary circuit” indication in L2 IIHs (and perhaps P2P 
IIH as well??) as protection against improperly forming adjacencies on boundary 

Regarding the Area SID advertisement, I take the point that this concept might 
be useful more generically, but as it is key to have the correct scope for the 
SID, it is hard to see how the advertisement could be used apart from the 
context (Area Proxy in this case). So advertising it separately doesn’t seem 

Regarding consistent SRGBs, you might find worth 
reading as something attempting to address a similar problem. It isn’t easy.


From: Tony Li <> On Behalf Of
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 1:41 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <>
Subject: Re: Comments on Requested Codepoints for draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy

Hi Les,

Thank you for your comments.  Please see my comments inline.

draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy-06  currently proposes the use of one new sub-TLV 
of Router Capabilities TLV and three new top level TLVs

It should probably be noted that the Area Segment SID is somewhat orthogonal to 
the rest of Area Proxy.   It could be conceivably be used without
Area Proxy, or with another solution.

It would not be unreasonable to consider the Area Segment SID to be a proposal 
logically independent of Area Proxy.  Thus, Area Proxy really is requesting two 
new top level TLVs.

1)Area Proxy Router Capability - sub-TLV of Router Capability TLV

2)Inside Node TLV - Top level TLV

3)Area Proxy TLV - Top Level TLV with optional sub-TLVs:
   Sub-TLV Area Proxy System ID
   Sub-TLV Area Segment SID

4)Area Segment SID - Top Level TLV

This seems unnecessarily profligate in its consumption of top level TLV code 
points – something to which, as a Designated Expert for the IS-IS registries,  
I pay close attention.
I can imagine an alternative encoding which utilizes a single sub-TLV within 
the Router Capabilities TLV:

Area Proxy Router Capability sub-TLV

  Type: TBD
  Length: Variable
  Value: Flags + Optional sub-TLVs

1 octet of Flags:

      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      |I|L|P| RSVD  |

I If set indicates Inside Node
L If set indicates capable of performing Area Leader functions
P If set indicates Proxy LSP advertisement
RSVD - for future allocation

Followed by optional sub-sub-TLVs

Sub-sub-TLV Area Proxy System ID
Sub-sub-TLV Area SID (Used only when P bit is set)

Please comment on this alternative.

One of the issues that drove us to introduce the Inside Node TLV was confusion 
about pseudonodes.  How does a node determine whether a pseudonode is Inside or 
Outside?  This is an important at flooding time because if it is Inside, it 
should be flooded externally.  We did not consider putting a router capability 
TLV into a pseudonode and opted for another top level TLV instead.

We chose to make the Area Proxy TLV a top level TLV because we felt that it was 
inappropriate to burden the Router Capabilities TLV with arbitrary amounts of 
additional data. In our humble opinion, the router capabilities TLV should be 
reserved for capabilities.  Yes, it’s true, we could put that data inside of 
the router capabilities TLV, but as we learned a long time ago with GUP, we can 
pretty much put anything anywhere. Just because we can doesn’t mean that we 

Additional Questions:
It is not clear to me why Area SID requires two different advertisements :
1)As a sub-TLV of Area Proxy TLV and
2)As a top Level TLV in the Proxy LSP
Is it because you wanted a unique codepoint for the Proxy LSP advertisements?

We wanted the sub-TLV so that the Area Leader can distribute the value to all 
of the Inside Edge Nodes.

We wanted the top level TLV so that it could be distributed to the Outside area.

There is a statement regarding the SR Capabilities sub-TLV advertised by the 
Area Leader as having:

   "an SRGB identical to that advertised by all Inside Routers"

SR does not require all nodes to advertise identical SRGBs. Are you imposing
a new requirement in order to support SR and Area Proxy together? If so, what 
happens if all Inside Nodes do NOT advertise identical SRGBs?

Yes, that is a requirement that we are imposing and it applies to the Inside 
Nodes, and possibly only to the Inside Edge Nodes.  More thought from SR 
experts would be welcome here.

I disclaim all expertise in SR. :-)

The concern here is that the SID value advertised in the Area Segment SID TLV 
be interpreted identically by inside and outside nodes. If the SID is an index 
and the SRGBs are not identical, then there would be some inconsistency between 
how the inside and inside nodes would interpret the SID.  Thus, mismatched 
SRGBs is a misconfiguration.


Lsr mailing list

Reply via email to