Re: [Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, Robert:
There are situations that we want to distinguish the passive interfaces from 
the normal interfaces. I will try to write one draft in recent days to describe 
it and for further discussion.

Thanks in advance.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 18:14, Robert Raszuk  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Aijun,
> 
> Right .. I took your email as an attempt/request to actually advertise 
> passive links in the first place. 
> 
> May we know what difference does it make to you if reachable prefix is part 
> of an active vs passive interface from IGP point of view ? 
> 
> Thx,
> R.
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 2:08 AM Aijun Wang  wrote:
>> Hi, Robert:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks for your information.
>> 
>> TLV-22 is used to describe the IS neighbor and the link between them. As for 
>> the passive interfaces, there may be no neighbor.
>> 
>> It seems the sub-TLV within this TLV is not the appropriate place to put 
>> this information?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> P.S. I changed the thread to reflect the conversion topic.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best Regards.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Aijun Wang
>> 
>> China Telecom
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Robert Raszuk
>> 发送时间: 2020年1月6日 18:58
>> 收件人: Aijun Wang
>> 抄送: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); lsr@ietf.org
>> 主题: Re: [Lsr] 答复: Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Aijun,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We just want to distinguish the passive interfaces from other normal 
>> interfaces within ISIS domain.  It seems that the “Attribute Flags” that 
>> described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7794#section-2.1 is the most 
>> appropriate place to extend to carry such information.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Really ?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> IMO much better place is to define new sub-TLV of TLV-22 and mark it there 
>> as passive link.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Ref: https://tools..ietf.org/html/rfc5029
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Now more interesting perhaps is to find out how ISIS is supposed to react to 
>> such information. Or is the intention to carry it just as an opaque info say 
>> for show commands use only ? 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thx,
>> R.
>> 
>>  
>> 
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] Methods to label the passive interfaces within ISIS

[Robert Raszuk]

Hi Aijun,

Right .. I took your email as an attempt/request to actually advertise
passive links in the first place.

May we know what difference does it make to you if reachable prefix is part
of an active vs passive interface from IGP point of view ?

Thx,
R.


On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 2:08 AM Aijun Wang  wrote:

> Hi, Robert:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your information.
>
> TLV-22 is used to describe the IS neighbor and the link between them. As
> for the passive interfaces, there may be no neighbor.
>
> It seems the sub-TLV within this TLV is not the appropriate place to put
> this information?
>
>
>
> P.S. I changed the thread to reflect the conversion topic.
>
>
>
> Best Regards.
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
> *发件人:* lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Robert
> Raszuk
> *发送时间:* 2020年1月6日 18:58
> *收件人:* Aijun Wang
> *抄送:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); lsr@ietf.org
> *主题:* Re: [Lsr] 答复: Is it necessary to expand the IS-IS level to 8?
>
>
>
> Aijun,
>
>
>
> We just want to distinguish the passive interfaces from other normal
> interfaces within ISIS domain.  It seems that the “Attribute Flags” that
> described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7794#section-2.1 is the most
> appropriate place to extend to carry such information.
>
>
>
> Really ?
>
>
>
> IMO much better place is to define new sub-TLV of TLV-22 and mark it there
> as passive link.
>
>
>
> Ref: https://tools..ietf.org/html/rfc5029
> 
>
>
>
> Now more interesting perhaps is to find out how ISIS is supposed to react
> to such information. Or is the intention to carry it just as an opaque info
> say for show commands use only ?
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode

[Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)]

Thanks Chris. We've just posted the WG version of this draft that was adopted.

-Original Message-
From: Lsr  On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: 06 January 2020 23:49
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: lsr-...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; 
draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-m...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode

That should be draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Christian Hopps  wrote:
> 
> The document is adopted.
> 
> Authors, please repost with the name draft-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode-00.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris & Acee.
> 
>> On Dec 13, 2019, at 6:54 AM, Christian Hopps  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi LSR WG and Draft Authors,
>> 
>> This begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-bfd-strict-mode/
>> 
>> Please indicate your support or objection by Dec 27th.
>> 
>> Authors, please respond indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that 
>> applies to this draft.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Chris & Acee.
>> ___
>> Lsr mailing list
>> Lsr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>> 
> 
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric

[Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)]

Thanks Chris. We've just posted the WG version of this draft that was adopted.

-Original Message-
From: Lsr  On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: 06 January 2020 23:51
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-reverse-met...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; Christian 
Hopps 
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric

The document is adopted.

Authors, please post a new version with name 
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-00.

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Dec 13, 2019, at 6:28 AM, Christian Hopps  wrote:
> 
> Hi LSR WG and Draft Authors,
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft:
> 
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric/
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection by Dec 27th.
> 
> Authors, please respond indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that 
> applies to this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris & Acee.
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> 

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr