Re: [Pppext] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID

[Adding in correct isis-wg address..]

On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> Bill
> 
> The discussion of suitable methods of ISIS and hence TRILL
> SystemID uniqueness needs to take place on the ISIS list
> (copied) regardless of the data link technology under
> consideration.
> 
> James I am fine with your proposed text.
> 
> Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/06/2011 14:19, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> Obviously, Stewart is wrong.  We've gone to great lengths to ensure PPP is
>> zero configuration.  We never need to buy and burn IEEE MAC identifiers.
>> 
>> TRILL seems to have zero configuration design goals, too.
>> 
>> Therefore, James is also wrong.  This is not an operator issue.  You
>> should *NOT* put this burden on operators.  It would really help for
>> anybody with aspirations of designing protocols to have actually been an
>> operator, and pay attention to discussions on the NANOG list!
>> 
>> As a personal example, just last summer I spent *many* hours trying to
>> figure our what was happening as a political campaign couldn't get their
>> wireless access point to work.  It was very flaky.  At long last, traces
>> discovered that the AP had a conflicting MAC with another device at
>> another office somewhere else in the Comcast region.  You cannot expect
>> political operatives (and quite frankly any other business) to fix this.
>> 
>> Therefore, this is a protocol design issue.  I've been trying to live with
>> the various compromises on language, but this goes too far!
>> 
>> Technically, that MUST is certainly wrong.  There's no guarantee of
>> uniqueness, and uniqueness is required by both ISIS and TRILL.
>> 
>> Moreover, there's no guarantee that a hot swappable or card or board based
>> device will not become (even temporarily) a PPP-only device.  To meet that
>> MUST, every vendor of PPP devices will have to burn an IEEE number for
>> every device.  Yet, it still might not work!
>> 
>> That's simply wrong!  There's a lot of nonsense in IETF protocols, but we
>> don't have to add more here and now.
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/31/11 2:20 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>> James,
>>> 
>>> I'm fine with your suggested tweak of Stewart Bryant's wording.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donald
>>> =============================
>>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>>  155 Beaver Street
>>>  Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>  [email protected]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:05 PM, James Carlson<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>>> As part of IETF review, the Routing ADs are looking over
>>>> draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-06.  Not too surprising to me -- given
>>>> that I still think it's far out of scope -- the text concerning IS-IS
>>>> System IDs is causing trouble in that review.  See this thread:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/threads.html#01533
>>>> 
>>>> I wish I could leave the worms safely in the can, but it's looking like
>>>> that might not be one of the options.
>>>> 
>>>> Instead of the reference to Bill Simpson's draft, Stewart Bryant
>>>> suggested replacement text like this:
>>>> 
>>>>  ISO/IEC 10589 states that it is the responsibility of the routeing
>>>>  domain administrative authority to enforce the uniqueness of the
>>>>  system ID. In cases where a zero configuration system is
>>>>  supplied the system manufacturer MUST install a suitable
>>>>  unique identifier at manufacturing time. One way to achieve
>>>>  this is for the manufacturer to use a unique IEEE MAC address
>>>>  following the allocation procedures normally used in the
>>>>  manufacture of an Ethernet interface.
>>>> 
>>>> This tosses the issue back into the implementor's lap (which,
>>>> incidentally, is exactly where I think the problem belongs), and
>>>> suggests an existing and known solution where a MAC identifier may be
>>>> allocated for the system itself and used as a global ID to construct the
>>>> necessary IS-IS System ID.
>>>> 
>>>> For use in this draft, I would alter the wording slightly to indicate
>>>> that zero-configuration is strongly preferred for TRILL (as guidance),
>>>> and that obtaining a suitable identifier is the implementor's
>>>> responsibility, rather than just saying "in cases where."
>>>> 
>>>> Would this change fly without breaking consensus?  Or do we have to
>>>> start over?
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W<[email protected]>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pppext mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pppext mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> For corporate legal information go to:
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg