Saravana Kumar | 3 Sep 19:34 2002

up/down bit question..

Hi Everyone,

I have a little doubt on the section about the up/down bit in the 
ISIS IPV6 draft, which goes like this..

  "As is described in [2], "the up/down bit is set to 0 when a 
   prefix is first injected into IS-IS.  If a prefix is 
   redistributed from a higher level to a lower level (e.g., 
   level two to level one), the bit shall be set to 1 to indicate
   that the prefix has travelled down the hierarchy.  If a prefix
   is redistributed from an area to another area at the same level
   then the up/down bit shall be set to 1."

I can understand the first two cases, but i cant put my finger on the
third. In which cases do we re-distribute from one area to another 
area 'at the same level' ?

If we re-distribute the routes from one area 'A' into another area 'B',
my guess is that it will be done by the L1L2 router in area 'B',which
would actually do a selective L2->L1 prefix distribution ( i.e 
distributing all the prefixes that it learns from the L2 LSP's coming 
from area 'A') This is again a case of redistributing routes from a 
higher level to a lower level. When do we redistribute from an area to
another area at the same level ?

Thanks,
Sarav
Manral, Vishwas | 4 Sep 12:58 2002

Paper comparing OSPF and ISIS

Hi folks,

The topic of differences between OSPF and ISIS has been raised more than
once. The topic has been covered in a few presentations before as well as a
lot of internal documents. It would however be helpful to "compare both
specs and put down the differences and pros and cons of the differences" for
the benefit of people.

I intend to make a group of people who would be interested in the effort. So
anyone willing to help can mail me and I will add them to the group, from
where we can take this further on.

I do have a preliminary list of things to start off.

Thanks,
Vishwas
Jeff Parker | 3 Sep 17:07 2002

Updates to "Interoperability" draft

In a judgment worthy of Solomon, our ADs have suggested that the best way to
move the draft-ietf-isis-interoperable document forward is to cut it in two:
one part that deals with the features described in ISO 10589, and one that
deal with the features described in RFC 1195.  We can then make the ISO half
informational, and the IP half normative.  

After looking at the contents, this seems quite possible.  With the
exception of the a few items (such as the impact of L2 to L1 leaking on the
meaning of the S bit in the Default Metric), the document splits cleanly
into the two halves.   I will be circulating the new documents for review on
the original mailing list formed for the document, but would be happy to
share the current state with any interested party on the full ISIS WG list.

- jeff parker
- axiowave networks
Noguchi Kay | 4 Sep 20:49 2002

Re: index of isisISAdjIPAddrEntry

Hi Tony,

> >	Tony, could you check and fix the isis-wg <at> ietf.org mailing list
> >	configuration? As I reported before to Tony Przygienda, my
> >	MTA, exim, claims no errors in the transactions show below.
> >
> We're at it

	Was that fixed already?
	I didn't see any update in the mailing list archive, though.

https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/isis-wg/current/maillist.html

Thank you,

								kay
Philip Christian | 4 Sep 15:01 2002
Picon

Proprietary TLV draft

draft-ietf-isis-proprietary-tlv-00.txt is now on the server at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-proprietary-tlv-00.txt

I have already noticed a typo in the last sentence on page two (replace "should" with "shown").

Any other comments gladly received.

Thanks, Philip

--

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Harwani, Sanjay | 5 Sep 20:08 2002

RE: Question about router id

Hi All,

Thanks for the response. Following up on the same, 
what if isis doesn't gets the router id tlv from its neighbour ?
does it means that although the link to this neighbout is te capable,
if this neighbor doesn't sends a router id then we cannot use it to create
tunnels ?

What is ISIS supposed to do if its own router id changes. ?
Ospf depends upon the router id, hence if the router id of the router
changes
then I believe Ospf toggles its state. 

Thanks
Sanjay

-----Original Message-----
From: Mihir Shah [mailto:mshah <at> avici.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:03 PM
To: Harwani, Sanjay; isis-wg <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Question about router id

Sanjay,
Router ID TLV was introduced in isis-te extensions draft to carry router id
information. Refer to section 6.0 of draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt.
Mihir.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harwani, Sanjay" <Sanjay.Harwani <at> marconi.com>
To: <isis-wg <at> ietf.org>
(Continue reading)

Jeff Parker | 5 Sep 19:18 2002

RE: Question about router id

> Hi All,
> 
> I would like to know how IS-IS should handle (convey) router_address
> which is an important piece of information for creating tunnels.
> 
> Is there a mechanism defined to carry this information?
> 
> Thanks
> Sanjay

Looks like the list is back in action.  

   "The Traffic Engineering router ID TLV is TLV type 134."
   <draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt>

- jeff parker
Chris Hopps | 5 Sep 20:34 2002

RE: up/down bit question..

Perhaps I didn't quote enough from [2] :)

If you look at the referenced document you'll find:

   "If a prefix is advertised from an area to another area at the same
   level, then the up/down bit shall be set to 1. This situation can
   arise when a router implements multiple virtual routers at the same
   level, but in different areas."

Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Saravana Kumar [mailto:sarav_k <at> spymac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:34 AM
To: isis-wg <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Isis-wg] up/down bit question..

Hi Everyone,

I have a little doubt on the section about the up/down bit in the 
ISIS IPV6 draft, which goes like this..

  "As is described in [2], "the up/down bit is set to 0 when a 
   prefix is first injected into IS-IS.  If a prefix is 
   redistributed from a higher level to a lower level (e.g., 
   level two to level one), the bit shall be set to 1 to indicate
   that the prefix has travelled down the hierarchy.  If a prefix
   is redistributed from an area to another area at the same level
   then the up/down bit shall be set to 1."

(Continue reading)

Jeff Parker | 5 Sep 19:57 2002

RE: What is the largest MTU we can assume that won't ge t fragmented?


> Anyway, I thought IS-IS had LSP fragments of 1500 because it 
> was assumed that would be safely carried on all links. 
> (Do I remember correctly?).
> 
> Radia

Radia -
	When we were doing the standards archeology for the
interoperability draft, someone (mike shand?) pointed out
that while 1492 was an upper bound, there were provisions
to -lower- that MTU in a network, using the management 
parameters originatingL1LSPBufferSize and 
originatingL2LSPBufferSize.  The details of how that would
work in practice are in the draft.  

	So you didn't make that assumption.

- jeff parker   
Mihir Shah | 5 Sep 20:03 2002

Re: Question about router id

Sanjay,
Router ID TLV was introduced in isis-te extensions draft to carry router id
information. Refer to section 6.0 of draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt.
Mihir.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harwani, Sanjay" <Sanjay.Harwani <at> marconi.com>
To: <isis-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: [Isis-wg] Question about router id

> Hi All,
>
> I would like to know how IS-IS should handle (convey) router_address
> which is an important piece of information for creating tunnels.
>
> Is there a mechanism defined to carry this information?
>
> Thanks
> Sanjay
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>

Gmane