Re: TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID

Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
>> All that said, I don't really care.  This is a tempest in a teapot.  I
>> can mash together both texts if the Routing ADs are willing to accept a
>> passing reference here to a draft that, in their words, hasn't even been
>> considered by the IS-IS community.
> James,
> 
> I believe that any departure from the text in ISO10589 needs
> to be discussed in the ISIS WG.

"Any" departure?  No matter how subservient?  That seems as inflexible
as the other end of this spectrum.

If I suggested text like this, would it require ISIS WG discussion, and,
if so, what's the chance that this discussion would terminate in a
positive way?

   3. An implementation that has only PPP links might have no
      Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) that can form an IS-IS
      System ID.  Resolving that issue is outside the scope of this
      document, however it is strongly RECOMMENDED that all TRILL
      implementations have at least one zero-configuration mechanism to
      obtain a valid System ID.  Refer to ISO/IEC 10589 regarding System
      ID uniqueness requirements.  Alternative solutions to this issue
      may also be defined in the future; see [8] for an example.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext