Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

2022-06-16 Thread Jaideep Choudhary
Hi Les,

Thanks for the response.
Yes, i understand that it would require a lot of efforts and can take some
years.

But as we discussed SYS ID 0 should  be considered valid as Standard
Documents doesn't define otherwise and at same time we should try to use a
logical value as a SYS ID so we don't create inter-operability issues where
a vendor doesn't consider it as valid.

"What reason did the customer give for configuring a systemid of 0?"

Customer had only a few Cisco nodes participating in the IS-IS , so they
started configuring the sys id .. then ..0001 and so on.

Thanks a lot for your time and understanding.

Regards
Jaideep


On Thu, 16 Jun, 2022, 12:57 am Les Ginsberg (ginsberg), 
wrote:

> Jaideep –
>
>
>
> I am not unsympathetic to problems encountered in the field.
>
> It isn’t always easy to get a customer to agree to what you and I might
> easily agree makes sense.
>
>
>
> But, in this case, consider what might be required to get an unambiguous
> standard defined:
>
>
>
> 1)We would have to establish consensus on whether 0 should/should not be
> considered as valid
>
>
>
> 2)We would have to get the vendors whose implementations do not conform to
> whatever is agreed upon in #1 to commit to changing their implementations
>
>
>
> 3)A standard would have to be written and work its way through the
> approval process. This would most practically be an IETF draft as there is
> no one actively updating ISO specs.
>
>
>
> All of this would take years – and at the end we would only have resolved
> the use of a systemid for which there is no practical deployment case.
>
>
>
> I just don’t think this is worth the effort.
>
>
>
> What reason did the customer give for configuring a systemid of 0?
>
>
>
>Les
>
>
>
> *From:* Jaideep Choudhary 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:59 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS
>
>
>
> Hi Les,
>
>
>
> We have recently experienced some issue in this regards on a vendor where
> SYS ID of .. was not interpreted correctly.
>
>
>
> In a single area with level L1 and mutli-vendor setup, a Cisco node was
> configured with SYS I'd of ...
>
> The other vendor node could not interpret .. as a system id
> the way it does for other SYS IDs and there were some issues with the
> system level command outputs.
>
>
>
> Modifying the SYS id  on Cisco node did help, but it took a lot of time to
> find the cause.
>
>
>
> When I talked about routing issues, what I meant was, that if for example
> a Juniper node doesn't consider SYS ID of .. as legal, then it
> may not install the LSP from the node with SYS ID=0.
>
>
>
> If it is directly connected node, then Juniper node may not form adjacency
> and it can be found out easily, but if it is not directly connected node,
> then it would take good amount of time to find the cause.
>
>
>
> That in turn can cause some issues.
>
>
>
> I also agree 100% that it doesn't make sense to make a SYS ID of 0, but
> talking from an experience we had, it was configured.
>
>
>
> Since it is not defined as invalid as per standard documents, it also
> makes sense to have uniformity across different implementations, so no such
> issue occurs in multi-vendor setups.
>
>
>
> Also the reason of verifying this with IETF was to understand the reason
> behind Juniper defining sys I'd as illegal.
>
> We wanted to confirm if SYS ID 0 is reserved for some other use ?
>
>
>
> I hope , I am able to make my point here.
>
>
>
> Really appreciate your time.
>
> Thanks !
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jaideep
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun, 2022, 10:46 am Les Ginsberg (ginsberg), <
> ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> (Taking this offlist – BCC the WG)
>
>
>
> Jaideep –
>
>
>
> From a standards perspective I have provided you with what I know.
>
>
>
> To characterize this as something which can cause “serious routing issues”
> is an exaggeration.
>
> Given that the same system ID cannot be used on more than one router, at
> worst if you were in a deployment where an implementation did not accept a
> systemid of , all you would need to do is modify the config of a single
> router.
>
>
>
> Assigning a systemid which has no relationship to the identity of the
> equipment/configuration of the node isn’t practical – I don’t think any
> thoughtful network manager would ever do such a thing.
>
> In my view you have lost perspective on this issue.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

2022-06-15 Thread tom petch
From: Lsr  on behalf of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 

Sent: 14 June 2022 17:29

Jaideep –

I am not aware that any standard formally defines a system-id of .. 
as invalid.
If there is, it would be an ISO specification – but a perusal of ISO 10589, ISO 
8348, and ISO 7498 did not yield any such statement.
(I would be happy to be corrected if someone has a reference.)

>From a practical standpoint, the lack of agreement on this by all 
>implementations should not represent a significant concern.
Schemes which automatically populate the system-id are typically based on the 
MAC address of some NIC on the box.
Another common strategy is to use the zero filled IP address of some loopback.
In either case all zeros will not be the result.

In cases where the systemid is explicitly configured, it is easy enough NOT to 
use all 0’s.


Looking at draft-isis-yang-isis-cfg, it has a regex for system-id which if I 
reverse engineer it aright allows for all zero along with all [0-9a-fA-F]

Tom Petch

HTH

Les

From: Lsr  On Behalf Of Jaideep Choudhary
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 8:00 AM
To: Tony Li 
Cc: supp...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

Hi Tony,

I am not looking for technical support, but looking for IETF's perspective 
regarding the system id in IS-IS.

As per the RFC 3784 there is no mention about any invalid value in a system id.

Can you please confirm whether there is any such restriction to not to use a 
SYS ID of .. as per IETF standards ?

If this mailing address is not appropriate for answering this query, can you 
suggest/redirect me to the correct team from IETF ?

Thanks.

Regards
Jaideep

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 20:19 Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>> 
wrote:

Hi,

Neither of these mailing lists are appropriate for technical support.  Please 
contact your vendors directly.

Tony



On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:12 AM, Jaideep Choudhary 
mailto:jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Team,

I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be .. or it 
is an invalid value for sys I'd ?

As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't mention 
explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.

Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but doesn't 
talk about any invalid option.

The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of .. 
as invalid.

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html



This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco doesn't 
define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.

I would appreciate your response on this.

Regards

Jaideep Choudhary

On Mon, 13 Jun, 2022, 11:08 pm Cindy Morgan via RT, 
mailto:supp...@ietf.org>> wrote:

Hi Jaideep,

You have reached the IETF Secretariat, which is the administrative branch of 
the IETF, and as such, we are not qualified to answer your technical questions.

You might have better luck if you try posing your question to the Link State 
Routing (LSR) Working Group (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lsr/about/). LSR 
was formed by merging the ISIS and OSPF WGs and assigning all their existing 
adopted work at the time of chartering to LSR. Their mailing list address is 
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>.

Best regards,
Cindy

On Mon Jun 13 10:10:54 2022, 
jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com<mailto:jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Team,


I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be .. or it 
is an invalid value for sys I'd ?


As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't mention 
explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.


Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but doesn't 
talk about any invalid option.


The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of .. 
as invalid.



https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html


This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco doesn't 
define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.


I would appreciate your response on this.


Regards

Jaideep Choudhary



___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto: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] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

2022-06-15 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
(Taking this offlist – BCC the WG)

Jaideep –

From a standards perspective I have provided you with what I know.

To characterize this as something which can cause “serious routing issues” is 
an exaggeration.
Given that the same system ID cannot be used on more than one router, at worst 
if you were in a deployment where an implementation did not accept a systemid 
of , all you would need to do is modify the config of a single router.

Assigning a systemid which has no relationship to the identity of the 
equipment/configuration of the node isn’t practical – I don’t think any 
thoughtful network manager would ever do such a thing.
In my view you have lost perspective on this issue.

   Les


From: Jaideep Choudhary 
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 9:57 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
Cc: Tony Li ; supp...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

Hi Les,

Thanks for the quick response.

I also could not find anywhere in the standard documentation stating that SYS 
ID of .. in IS-IS as invalid nor is there any restriction to how to 
calculate the SYS ID.

Yes, there are recommendations to use MAC or IP address to calculate the SYS ID 
, so it remains unique in a routing domain, but couldn't be found anywhere in 
the standard documentation, if SYS ID must be derived from these addresses only.

Having said that, in most of the cases, there would be very less probability of 
SYS ID of .. being configured in a production environment (as you 
also mentioned), but still, as there is no such explicit restriction (in the 
standards ISO10589 or RFC 3784) to not to use SYS ID: 0, so it can still be 
used as a valid SYS ID in the devices where it is allowed to configure the 
NET/SYSTEM ID manually.

So in that case if some device the setting of SYS ID being 0 is considered as 
invalid or illegal, that can cause some serious routing issues in a single area 
multi vendor setup in ISIS.
So, can we say that from Standards perspective SYS ID: .. is a 
legal setting ?

Regards
Jaideep

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:59 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Jaideep –

I am not aware that any standard formally defines a system-id of .. 
as invalid.
If there is, it would be an ISO specification – but a perusal of ISO 10589, ISO 
8348, and ISO 7498 did not yield any such statement.
(I would be happy to be corrected if someone has a reference.)

From a practical standpoint, the lack of agreement on this by all 
implementations should not represent a significant concern.
Schemes which automatically populate the system-id are typically based on the 
MAC address of some NIC on the box.
Another common strategy is to use the zero filled IP address of some loopback.
In either case all zeros will not be the result.

In cases where the systemid is explicitly configured, it is easy enough NOT to 
use all 0’s.

HTH

Les

From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
Jaideep Choudhary
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 8:00 AM
To: Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>>
Cc: supp...@ietf.org<mailto:supp...@ietf.org>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org<http://rt5.ietf.org> #7080] System ID in ISIS

Hi Tony,

I am not looking for technical support, but looking for IETF's perspective 
regarding the system id in IS-IS.

As per the RFC 3784 there is no mention about any invalid value in a system id.

Can you please confirm whether there is any such restriction to not to use a 
SYS ID of .. as per IETF standards ?

If this mailing address is not appropriate for answering this query, can you 
suggest/redirect me to the correct team from IETF ?

Thanks.

Regards
Jaideep

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 20:19 Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>> 
wrote:

Hi,

Neither of these mailing lists are appropriate for technical support.  Please 
contact your vendors directly.

Tony


On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:12 AM, Jaideep Choudhary 
mailto:jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Team,

I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be .. or it 
is an invalid value for sys I'd ?

As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't mention 
explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.

Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but doesn't 
talk about any invalid option.

The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of .. 
as invalid.

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html



This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco doesn't 
define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.

I would appreciate your response on this.

Regards

Jaideep Choudhary

On Mon, 13 Jun, 2022, 11:08 pm Cindy Morgan via RT, 
mailto:supp...@ietf.org>> wrote:

Hi Jaideep,

You have reached th

Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

2022-06-14 Thread Jaideep Choudhary
Hi Les,

Thanks for the quick response.

I also could not find anywhere in the standard documentation stating that
SYS ID of .. in IS-IS as invalid nor is there any restriction
to how to calculate the SYS ID.

Yes, there are recommendations to use MAC or IP address to calculate the
SYS ID , so it remains unique in a routing domain, but *couldn't *be found
anywhere in the standard documentation, if SYS ID *must be derived from
these addresses only*.

Having said that, in most of the cases, there would be very less
probability of SYS ID of .. being configured in a production
environment (as you also mentioned), but still, as there is no such
explicit restriction (in the standards ISO10589 or RFC 3784) to not to use
SYS ID: 0, so it can still be used as a valid SYS ID in the devices where
it is allowed to configure the NET/SYSTEM ID manually.

So in that case if some device the setting of SYS ID being 0 is considered
as invalid or illegal, that can cause some serious routing issues in a
single area multi vendor setup in ISIS.

*So, can we say that from Standards perspective SYS ID: .. is a
legal setting ?*

Regards
Jaideep

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:59 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
wrote:

> Jaideep –
>
>
>
> I am not aware that any standard formally defines a system-id of
> .. as invalid.
>
> If there is, it would be an ISO specification – but a perusal of ISO
> 10589, ISO 8348, and ISO 7498 did not yield any such statement.
>
> (I would be happy to be corrected if someone has a reference.)
>
>
>
> From a practical standpoint, the lack of agreement on this by all
> implementations should not represent a significant concern.
>
> Schemes which automatically populate the system-id are typically based on
> the MAC address of some NIC on the box.
>
> Another common strategy is to use the zero filled IP address of some
> loopback.
>
> In either case all zeros will not be the result.
>
>
>
> In cases where the systemid is explicitly configured, it is easy enough
> NOT to use all 0’s.
>
>
>
> HTH
>
>
>
> Les
>
>
>
> *From:* Lsr  *On Behalf Of * Jaideep Choudhary
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2022 8:00 AM
> *To:* Tony Li 
> *Cc:* supp...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS
>
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
>
>
> I am not looking for technical support, but looking for IETF's perspective
> regarding the system id in IS-IS.
>
>
>
> As per the RFC 3784 there is no mention about any invalid value in a
> system id.
>
>
>
> Can you please confirm whether there is any such restriction to not to use
> a SYS ID of .. as per IETF standards ?
>
>
>
> If this mailing address is not appropriate for answering this query, can
> you suggest/redirect me to the correct team from IETF ?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jaideep
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 20:19 Tony Li  wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Neither of these mailing lists are appropriate for technical support.
> Please contact your vendors directly.
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:12 AM, Jaideep Choudhary <
> jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be ..
> or it is an invalid value for sys I'd ?
>
> As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't
> mention explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.
>
> Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but
> doesn't talk about any invalid option.
>
> The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of
> .. as invalid.
>
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html
>
>
>
> This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco
> doesn't define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.
>
> I would appreciate your response on this.
>
> Regards
>
> Jaideep Choudhary
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Jun, 2022, 11:08 pm Cindy Morgan via RT, 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jaideep,
>
> You have reached the IETF Secretariat, which is the administrative branch
> of the IETF, and as such, we are not qualified to answer your technical
> questions.
>
> You might have better luck if you try posing your question to the Link
> State Routing (LSR) Working Group (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lsr/about/). LSR was formed by merging
> the ISIS and OSPF WGs and assigning all their existing adopted work at the
> time of chartering to LSR. Their mailing list address is lsr@i

Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

2022-06-14 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Jaideep –

I am not aware that any standard formally defines a system-id of .. 
as invalid.
If there is, it would be an ISO specification – but a perusal of ISO 10589, ISO 
8348, and ISO 7498 did not yield any such statement.
(I would be happy to be corrected if someone has a reference.)

From a practical standpoint, the lack of agreement on this by all 
implementations should not represent a significant concern.
Schemes which automatically populate the system-id are typically based on the 
MAC address of some NIC on the box.
Another common strategy is to use the zero filled IP address of some loopback.
In either case all zeros will not be the result.

In cases where the systemid is explicitly configured, it is easy enough NOT to 
use all 0’s.

HTH

Les

From: Lsr  On Behalf Of Jaideep Choudhary
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 8:00 AM
To: Tony Li 
Cc: supp...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

Hi Tony,

I am not looking for technical support, but looking for IETF's perspective 
regarding the system id in IS-IS.

As per the RFC 3784 there is no mention about any invalid value in a system id.

Can you please confirm whether there is any such restriction to not to use a 
SYS ID of .. as per IETF standards ?

If this mailing address is not appropriate for answering this query, can you 
suggest/redirect me to the correct team from IETF ?

Thanks.

Regards
Jaideep

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 20:19 Tony Li mailto:tony...@tony.li>> 
wrote:

Hi,

Neither of these mailing lists are appropriate for technical support.  Please 
contact your vendors directly.

Tony



On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:12 AM, Jaideep Choudhary 
mailto:jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Team,

I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be .. or it 
is an invalid value for sys I'd ?

As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't mention 
explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.

Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but doesn't 
talk about any invalid option.

The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of .. 
as invalid.

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html



This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco doesn't 
define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.

I would appreciate your response on this.

Regards

Jaideep Choudhary

On Mon, 13 Jun, 2022, 11:08 pm Cindy Morgan via RT, 
mailto:supp...@ietf.org>> wrote:

Hi Jaideep,

You have reached the IETF Secretariat, which is the administrative branch of 
the IETF, and as such, we are not qualified to answer your technical questions.

You might have better luck if you try posing your question to the Link State 
Routing (LSR) Working Group (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lsr/about/). LSR 
was formed by merging the ISIS and OSPF WGs and assigning all their existing 
adopted work at the time of chartering to LSR. Their mailing list address is 
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>.

Best regards,
Cindy

On Mon Jun 13 10:10:54 2022, 
jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com<mailto:jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Team,


I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be .. or it 
is an invalid value for sys I'd ?


As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't mention 
explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.


Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but doesn't 
talk about any invalid option.


The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of .. 
as invalid.



https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html


This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco doesn't 
define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.


I would appreciate your response on this.


Regards

Jaideep Choudhary



___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org<mailto: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] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

2022-06-14 Thread Jaideep Choudhary
Hi Tony,

I am not looking for technical support, but looking for IETF's perspective
regarding the system id in IS-IS.

As per the RFC 3784 there is no mention about any invalid value in a system
id.

Can you please confirm whether there is any such restriction to not to use
a SYS ID of .. as per IETF standards ?

If this mailing address is not appropriate for answering this query, can
you suggest/redirect me to the correct team from IETF ?

Thanks.

Regards
Jaideep


On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 20:19 Tony Li  wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Neither of these mailing lists are appropriate for technical support.
> Please contact your vendors directly.
>
> Tony
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:12 AM, Jaideep Choudhary <
> jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be ..
> or it is an invalid value for sys I'd ?
>
> As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't
> mention explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.
>
> Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but
> doesn't talk about any invalid option.
>
> The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of
> .. as invalid.
>
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html
>
>
> This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco
> doesn't define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.
>
> I would appreciate your response on this.
>
> Regards
>
> Jaideep Choudhary
>
> On Mon, 13 Jun, 2022, 11:08 pm Cindy Morgan via RT, 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jaideep,
>>
>> You have reached the IETF Secretariat, which is the administrative branch
>> of the IETF, and as such, we are not qualified to answer your technical
>> questions.
>>
>> You might have better luck if you try posing your question to the Link
>> State Routing (LSR) Working Group (
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lsr/about/). LSR was formed by merging
>> the ISIS and OSPF WGs and assigning all their existing adopted work at the
>> time of chartering to LSR. Their mailing list address is lsr@ietf.org.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Cindy
>>
>> On Mon Jun 13 10:10:54 2022, jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi Team,
>>
>>
>> I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be ..
>> or it is an invalid value for sys I'd ?
>>
>>
>> As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't
>> mention explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.
>>
>>
>> Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but
>> doesn't talk about any invalid option.
>>
>>
>> The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of
>> .. as invalid.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html
>>
>>
>> This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco
>> doesn't define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.
>>
>>
>> I would appreciate your response on this.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jaideep Choudhary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
> 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] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

2022-06-14 Thread Tony Li

Hi,

Neither of these mailing lists are appropriate for technical support.  Please 
contact your vendors directly.

Tony


> On Jun 14, 2022, at 12:12 AM, Jaideep Choudhary 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Team,
> I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be .. or 
> it is an invalid value for sys I'd ?
> 
> As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't mention 
> explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.
> 
> Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but doesn't 
> talk about any invalid option.
> 
> The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of 
> .. as invalid.
> 
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html
>  
> 
> 
> This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco doesn't 
> define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.
> 
> I would appreciate your response on this.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jaideep Choudhary
> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 Jun, 2022, 11:08 pm Cindy Morgan via RT,  > wrote:
> Hi Jaideep,
> 
> You have reached the IETF Secretariat, which is the administrative branch of 
> the IETF, and as such, we are not qualified to answer your technical 
> questions.
> 
> You might have better luck if you try posing your question to the Link State 
> Routing (LSR) Working Group (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lsr/about/ 
> ). LSR was formed by merging the 
> ISIS and OSPF WGs and assigning all their existing adopted work at the time 
> of chartering to LSR. Their mailing list address is lsr@ietf.org 
> .
> 
> Best regards,
> Cindy
> 
> On Mon Jun 13 10:10:54 2022, jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Team,
>  
> I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be .. or 
> it is an invalid value for sys I'd ?
> 
>  
> As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't mention 
> explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.
> 
>  
> Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but doesn't 
> talk about any invalid option.
> 
>  
> The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of 
> .. as invalid.
> 
>  
>  
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html
>  
> 
>  
> This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco doesn't 
> define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.
> 
>  
> I would appreciate your response on this.
> 
>  
> Regards
> 
> Jaideep Choudhary
> 
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> 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] [rt5.ietf.org #7080] System ID in ISIS

2022-06-14 Thread Jaideep Choudhary
Hi Team,

I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be ..
or it is an invalid value for sys I'd ?

As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't
mention explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.

Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but
doesn't talk about any invalid option.

The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of
.. as invalid.

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html


This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco
doesn't define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.

I would appreciate your response on this.

Regards

Jaideep Choudhary

On Mon, 13 Jun, 2022, 11:08 pm Cindy Morgan via RT, 
wrote:

> Hi Jaideep,
>
> You have reached the IETF Secretariat, which is the administrative branch
> of the IETF, and as such, we are not qualified to answer your technical
> questions.
>
> You might have better luck if you try posing your question to the Link
> State Routing (LSR) Working Group (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lsr/about/). LSR was formed by merging
> the ISIS and OSPF WGs and assigning all their existing adopted work at the
> time of chartering to LSR. Their mailing list address is lsr@ietf.org.
>
> Best regards,
> Cindy
>
> On Mon Jun 13 10:10:54 2022, jaideepchoudhar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
>
>
> I would like to know, whether in IS-IS, a system id can be ..
> or it is an invalid value for sys I'd ?
>
>
>
> As per ISO 10589 a system id can be of 1 to 8 bytes long, but doesn't
> mention explicitly whether SYS ID of .. could be invalid.
>
>
>
> Also as per RFC 3784, it says System id is typically of 6 bytes, but
> doesn't talk about any invalid option.
>
>
>
> The reason I am asking this is that Juniper defines a SYS ID of
> .. as invalid.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html
>
>
>
> This can cause issues in inter-operability as some vendors like Cisco
> doesn't define a SYS-ID of .. as invalid.
>
>
>
> I would appreciate your response on this.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jaideep Choudhary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr