NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 44th IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 08-Jan-99
Chair(s):
Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>
Antoni Przygienda <prz@dnrc.bell-labs.com>
Routing Area Director(s):
Rob Coltun <rcoltun@lightera.com>
Routing Area Advisor:
Rob Coltun <rcoltun@lightera.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:isis-wg@juniper.net
To Subscribe: isis-wg-request@juniper.net
Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/isis
Description of Working Group:
IS-IS is an IGP specified and standarized by ISO and incorporating extensions to support IP. It has been deployed successfully in the Internet for several years years. The IS-IS Working Group is chartered to document current protocol implementation practices and improvements, as well as to propose further extensions to be used within the scope of IS-IS and IP routing. Short term, the WG is expected to deliver a set of documents describing common implementation practices and extensions necessary to scale the protocol. These specifications will encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations.
This working group will interact with other standards bodies that have responsibility for standardizing IS-IS.
Goals and Milestones:
Dec 98 |
|
Submit I-D on IETF recommendations for improvements to IS-IS |
Dec 98 |
|
Submit I-D on IETF comments on the proposed second edition of IS-IS |
Dec 98 |
|
Submit I-D on IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions |
Dec 98 |
|
Submit I-D on IS-IS HMAC-MD5 Authentication |
Dec 98 |
|
Submit I-D on IS-IS over IPv4 |
Dec 98 |
|
Submit I-D on Maintaining more than 255 adjacencies in IS-IS |
Dec 98 |
|
Submit I-D on Optional Checksums on IIHs, CSNPs, and PSNPs in IS-IS |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit I-D on IS-IS MIB |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit IETF recommendations for improvements to IS-IS to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit IS-IS over IPv4 to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit IS-IS HMAC-MD5 Authentication to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit Maintaining more than 255 adjacencies in IS-IS to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit Optional Checksums on IIHs, CSNPs, and PSNPs in IS-IS to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC |
Mar 99 |
|
Review WG's priorities and future potential |
Jul 99 |
|
Submit IS-IS MIB to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. |
Internet-Drafts:
· Management Information Base for IS-IS
· Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for ISIS
· Maintaining more than 255 adjacencies in IS-IS
· IS-IS HMAC-MD5 Authentication
· IS-IS Optimized Multipath (ISIS-OMP)
Request For Comments:
RFC |
Status |
Title |
RFC1195 |
PS |
Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments |
Jeff Parker, MIB update, draft-parker-isis-wg-mib-xx.txt
Presented updated MIB draft. Several new values has been requested and new variables will be introduced, especially the possibility to override hello padding and large circuit id to support more than 255 circuits. Discussions happened on the mailing list and conclusion drawn that defaults should be removed from the isisSysTable since their semantics were very confusing. This remains to be done in the next version of the draft.
Tony Przygienda, IPv4 update, draft-ietf-isis-wg-over-ip-xx.txt
Mixed Ethernet IP and OSI encapsulation has been dropped from the draft. The artificial Ethernet encapsulation has been dropped as well after careful thinking. Dave Katz made the comment that we can use the local bit to make it work. Requires some more thinking and possibly another version. Fragmentation issues have been carefully looked at based on several comments and no further input has been given from the group.
Henk Smith, traffic engineering draft, draft-ietf-isis-traffic-00.txt
Introduces wider metrics, L2 to L1 leaking to solve MED problems and traffic engineering parameters for links. Proposed a TLV format. The intention of the draft is for the new TLV to replace 128 and 130 down the road. Question has been asked why the name of the node is not included into this TLV as well. Several comments came from the group:
· bandwidth is expressed in %, why don't we carry absolute numbers ? This seems to be under discussion.
· currently available bandwidth is carried instead of reserved because of rounding problems.
· Maximum link bandwidth could be a complete vector as well, not only one number. Preemption will have problems with the encoding due to the assumption that only level 0 is non-preemptible. Parallel changes should be done in ospf draft.
· With the up/down bit, do we need other proposals for L1/L2 leaking ? The answer is yes, deployment issues and not clear whether everyone will use the presented draft.
· IPv6 issues have not been addressed.
Tony Przygienda, draft-ietf-isis-l1l2-00.txt
Tony Li, draft-ietf-isis-domain-wide-00.txt
Both drafts proposed to solve the same basic problem of lack of globally optimal routes and meaningfull IGP metrics for MEDs with different encodings. After the presentations, technical discussion dissolved into comments on possible loops forming without concrete examples and more discussion on private and general mailing lists has been encouraged. More presentations and progress is expected.
Dave Katz, 3-way hello, draft-ietf-isis-3way-00.txt
Dave presented the draft. One question was asked of whether it is clear in which states the optional part needs to be included and the answer was that the state machine covers it.
New Milestones Presentation and Discussion
new milestones have been presented and will be approved and posted
· recommendations to ISIS in ISO are not a deliverable anymore
· comments on v2 isis found a person that volunteered to compile it
· isis traffic engineering is submitted
· hmac md5 is submitted, will undergo revision. Ran Atkinson spoke up and his concerns have been acknowledged.
· isis over ipv4 submitted, will probably have more revisions
· more than 255 adjacencies submitted, should go forward to informational
· optional checksums submitted. Waiting for more implementations
· MIB submitted, still in revisions
· improvements of core ISIS protocol are not a milestone anymore
· submit traffic engineering as informational
· submit isis over ipv4 as informational
· hmac md5 advancing not possible to submit at this point in time.
· optional checksums informational moved to Nov '99
· review priorities and milestones in Mar '2000
· move ISIS MIB as proposed standard
· traffic engineering MIB. Unclear whether should be done in ISIS. If a new working group is formed, probably rather there.
Question was asked as of when is the earliest point at which the workgroup could be shut down. This should be brought up at the next discussion about scope and milestones.
Additional traffic engineering discussion
At the end of the session, additional traffic engineering discussion items have been presented by Ajay Kachrani without a draft and led to discussion. Current fault-protected bandwidth reserved, current link utilization and probability of packet drops have been proposed. Major comment was that this has been considered early and dropped since no use was seen in terms of computation/algorithms. As well, link utilization cannot be used safely to drive computations without major oscillation issues. Ultimately, the feeling was that without a proposed algorithm, the parameters are not necessary and don't need standardization. Recommendation has been given to submit a draft with a justification for the parameters beyond the desire to use the information for management and data collection purposes.