Re: TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID

On 01/06/2011 16:50, James Carlson wrote:
> 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.
You are OK up to here since you conform to the current ISIS spec.

> Alternative solutions to this issue
>        may also be defined in the future; see [8] for an example.
This needs to be discussed in the ISIS WG, and I cannot vouch
for the outcome.

- Stewart
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext