> On Jan 12, 2022, at 6:53 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 12, 2022, at 3:10 PM, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> m having a little trouble fully understanding what you're saying here. >> >> However, I think what is being done is the user configures one router (e.g., >> configures "isis passive" on "interfaec Foo0"), and the fact of that >> configuration is then transmitted inside the IGP. Other routers in the same >> domain then see and act on this configuration. >> >> That is exactly what a network management system is for. This can and should >> all be done with a network management system not the routing protocol. > > > Chris, > > We have ample precedent for carrying TE information in the IGP. While you > may regret that precedent, it is set.
This isn't the same as TE information which can be/is based dynamic values on the router. I'm pretty sure that it isn't even using the 2-way connectivity check. It's literally just saying "Router A has a stub link B (i.e., it has the config 'isis passive' on it)". That infomration is already a part of an operators NMS b/c that NMS is what generated that router's configuration and stuck it on that router in the first place. That same NMS is going to be configuring the other router that would be looking for that "stub link" information in the IGP. Unless I've mis-understood something here, the proposoal is literally just pushing static configuration details around inside the IGP. Thanks, Chris. > > AFAICT, the only thing different here is that there’s no actual adjacency on > the link. I see no reason to treat it as anything other than a normal > adjacency (perhaps to system id 0000.0000.0000?). The two-way check will > exclude it from within SPF. > > Tony > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
