Hi Les,
On 9/24/22, 5:59 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Acee -
Thanx for the quick review/suggestions.
Note that I used the name of the TLV as shown in
https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#tlv-codepoints
- which differs from what is in the text of RFC 5308.
There seems to be inconsistency in the registry with respect to abbreviating
"Interface" with "Intf." and "Address" with "Addr." I'd avoid the abbreviations
in future documents.
Happy to replace "global IPv6 Interface Address" with "non-link-local IPv6
address" - but let's wait for Alvaro's response in case he wants further
changes.
Sure.
Thanks,
Acee
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2022 2:36 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Alvaro Retana
> <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> <[email protected]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>; Lars
> Eggert <[email protected]>; Paul Wouters <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: (with
> DISCUSS)
>
> Hi Les,
>
> Looks good. See one suggestion.
>
> On 9/24/22, 5:23 PM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Alvaro -
>
> I have given your comments regarding clearer guidance on what value to
> use for router id more thought and tried to address this in V5 of the
> document (recently posted).
>
> I introduced a new sub-section "Choosing the TE Router ID Value",
> discussing how to choose the value for IPv4 and IPv6.
>
> Consistent with the terminology in RFC 5308, I'd use " IPv6 Interface
Address
> TLV" and " non-link-local IPv6 address" in the second paragraph.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> Subsequent sections now refer to this section.
>
> Note that V5 also addresses comments from:
>
> Rob Wilton
> Eric Vyncke
> Lars Eggert
> Paul Wouters
>
> Let me know if you still have concerns.
>
> Les
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 9:30 PM
> > To: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04:
> (with
> > DISCUSS)
> >
> > Alvaro -
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 6:06 AM
> > > To: The IESG <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected];
> > > [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04:
> (with
> > > DISCUSS)
> > >
> > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis-04: Discuss
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
all
> > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
cut this
> > > introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to
> > > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> > > positions/
> > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> > > positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > DISCUSS:
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I am balloting DISCUSS because I believe the specification is not
clear
> > enough.
> > >
> > > (1) The document recommends (5 separate times) that an ID "SHOULD
> be
> > > identical
> > > to the value advertised" in an existing TLV.
> > >
> > > If the other TLV is advertised, when is it ok for the values not
to be the
> > > same? Why is this action recommended and not required?
> > >
> > [LES:] The new text in Section 3.1 introduces a couple of new (as
> compared
> > to the original RFC 5316 text) possibilities:
> >
> > 1)The non-zero value could be identical to what is advertised in
TLV 134
> or it
> > could be identical to what is advertised in TLV 132 (IP Interface
Address).
> > This allows for cases where a Router ID is not configured but a
stable
> unique
> > IPv4 address is still advertised for the node.
> >
> > 2)The Router ID is 0.0.0.0 because we are dealing with an IPv6 only
> > deployment.
> >
> > Now, I suppose we could say the Router ID field SHOULD/MUST be
> identical
> > to TLV 134 except when TLV 134 isn't advertised (which is perfectly
legal
> > BTW) - but I find such text awkward at best - and (as per my reply
to Tom
> et
> > al) a MUST here is overly restrictive.
> > Does this help address your concern?
> >
> > > Should the receiver of these TLVs take any action if the values
are not
> > > identical?
> >
> > [LES:] No.
> >
> > >
> > > (2) §3.1: The requirement for the Router ID to be unique within
the
> > flooding
> > > scope of the LSP has been removed.
> >
> > [LES:] We are not changing anything about TLV 134 (AKA TE Router ID
) .
> But
> > given the multiple ways the field in the inter AS TLV can be filled
in, it no
> > longer seemed appropriate to make this statement.
> > The need for uniqueness of the TE Router ID still exists - but it
is the
> province
> > of RFC 5305.
> >
> > Les
> >
> > >
> > > Please help me understand why this change is ok. If the Router
ID can
> be
> > > used
> > > to identify "the router who generates the inter-AS reachability
TLV",
> not
> > > requiring unique values seems to go counter to that idea.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
