Re: Proposed Liaison response on Ethernet Jumbo Frames

Hi Les,

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Alia –
>
>
>
> First, I want to thank you for all the work you did in clearing the
> issues. You have cleared the way for the outcome which I think we want –
> and done so very expeditiously – which hopefully will minimize any
> deployment of the unwanted alternate Ethertype defined by IEEE.
>
>
>
> I am fine with the text below. However, I am not sure what you are
> concerned about regarding:
>
>
>
> *“Please also discuss whether there is additional ISIS work to be done.
> I'm specifically thinking about sending hello packets at the MTU.”*
>
>
>
> It is padded hellos which are the most common use case for Jumbo frames as
> that is the default behavior for the protocol.
>
> It is also possible to send Jumbo LSPs – but this can only be done if all
> routers are configured to support a larger lsp-mtu setting and all links in
> the network on which IS-IS operates have an MTU large enough to accommodate
> the larger LSPs.
>
>
>
> In any case I don’t believe there is any work to be done here.
> Implementations which support draft-ietf-isis-ext-eth-01 already do this.
>

Right - my question is, given that draft-ietf-isis-ext-eth-01 isn't an RFC
and that there is now (hopefully with
Ethertype 88-70) an IEEE standard, is there a benefit to being explicit
about the related IS-IS padded hellos?  This is someplace where I believe
there are slightly different implementations & defaults.

That's the only work I was picturing.

Regards,
Alia



> The only work would be if we are required to support the IEEE specified
> Ethertype (C9-D1) as a transition mechanism or – perish the thought – as a
> permanent alternate. What we hope to achieve by this liason is to kill the
> new ethertype before it gets deployed.
>
>
>
>    Les
>
>
>
> *From:* Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Alia
> Atlas
> *Sent:* Friday, June 02, 2017 9:16 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [Isis-wg] Proposed Liaison response on Ethernet Jumbo Frames
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> At the end of the ISIS WG meeting at IETF 98, I called attention to the
> recent liaison from IEEE -  https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1509/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1509/>.  There was significant
> concern expressed about the decision to use a new EtherType instead of
> EtherType 88-70, which is widely deployed.
>
>
>
> Here is a proposed liaison response, which should also update you on
> progress that has been made in this area. I would prefer to get this
> liaison, with any improvements, agreed to by June 15.
>
>
>
> =========
>
> Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your liaison on March 25.  We are happy to learn
> that IEEE now has a standard, IEEE Std 802.1AC-2016, for encoding LLC
> frames and that its use appears to be exactly as described in
> draft-ietf-isis-ext-eth-01.  There are a large number of pre-standard
> implementations and deployments of this functionality.
>
>
>
> With informal discussion, we were able to determine the current owner of
> EtherType 88-70 and have what we believe is the necessary statement so that
> this EtherType is now available for this functionality.  I would like to
> thank both Yaakov Stein, CTO RAD, for making this happen and David Aviv,
> CTO Radware.  As these types of challenges come up and have large impact,
> we would prefer to learn of them earlier so that we can try and assist
> sooner in the process.
>
>
>
> We are quite concerned about the allocation of a new EtherType given the
> extremely large deployment of this pre-standard common feature.  We would
> encourage the IEEE 802.1 Working Group to strongly consider updating IEEE
> Std 802.1AC to use the deployed EtherType 88-70 that is now available for
> this purpose.
>
>
>
> The ISIS Working Group will discuss whether there is additional work to do
> now that IEEE Std 802.1AC-2016 is available.
>
>
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Alia Atlas, IETF Routing Area Director
>
> Chris Hopps, ISIS Working Group Chair
>
> Hannes Gredler, ISIS Working Group Chair
>
>
>
> =========
>
>
>
> Please also discuss whether there is additional ISIS work to be done.  I'm
> specifically thinking about sending hello packets at the MTU.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alia
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg