From pleela@hcl.in Thu Dec 3 23:05:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799523A6835 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 23:05:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.604 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iInVcv9i9vRU for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 23:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from gws07.hcl.in (gws07.hcl.in [203.105.186.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E863A69BD for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 23:05:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from gws07.hcl.in (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF5A20F040; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:35:01 +0530 (IST) Received: from chn-hclin-ht01.CORP.HCL.IN (unknown [10.249.64.35]) by gws07.hcl.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781B020F017; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:35:01 +0530 (IST) Received: from CHN-HCLT-CASHT2.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN (10.108.45.28) by chn-hclin-ht01.CORP.HCL.IN (10.249.64.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:34:55 +0530 Received: from CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([fe80::f46b:fdf2:3218:985d]) by CHN-HCLT-CASHT2.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:34:48 +0530 From: "Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech" To: "isis-wg@ietf.org" , "'naiming@cisco.com'" , "'nsheth@juniper.net'" Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:34:48 +0530 Thread-Topic: Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS Thread-Index: Acp0sBEdFWuRQ1dISzSFDIUGZNjpNQ== Message-ID: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486FCHNHCLTEVS07H_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3187-6.0.0.1038-17048.004 X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.021-7.0-31-1 X-imss-scan-details: No--9.021-7.0-31-1 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No Cc: "Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech" Subject: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:05:10 -0000 --_000_0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486FCHNHCLTEVS07H_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, The=20RFC5120=20has=20defined=20a=20separate=20TLV(=20TLV#235,237)=20for= =20carrying=20addresses=20corresponding=20to=20each=20topology=20with=20t= he=20corresponding=20MT-ID.=20It=20says=20that=20this=20is=20an=20extensi= on=20of=20the=20extended=20IPv4/v6=20reachability=20TLVs=20defined=20in= =20an=20earlier=20RFC3784.=20The=20RFC1195=20which=20defines=20extensions= =20for=20ISIS=20for=20IP=20has=20defined=20a=20separate=20TLV=20for=20car= rying=20interface=20addresses.=20There=20is=20no=20mention=20of=20extensi= ons=20to=20this=20TLV=20in=20the=20MT-ISIS=20rfc5120.=20So,=20will=20the= =20interface=20addresses=20also=20be=20carried=20in=20the=20new=20TLV#235= =20or=20in=20the=20sub-tlv=20of=20the=20MT=20IS=20Reachability=20TLV=20(= =20#222).=20The=20=20extended=20IS=20TLV=20format=20used=20in=20TLV#222= =20and=20defined=20in=20rfc3784=20says=20that=20the=20ip=20(=20local=20an= d=20remote)=20address=20sub-tlv=20of=20the=20interface=20is=20optional=20= in=20non-TE=20cases.=20So=20its=20not=20clear=20where=20the=20interface= =20address=20to=20MT-ID=20association=20is=20carried.=20=20=20The=20inter= face=20address=20may=20be=20needed=20to=20install=20a=20next=20hop=20(=20= ipv4/v6)=20address=20in=20a=20route.=20Or=20can=20the=20MAC=20address=20o= f=20the=20interface=20received=20in=20the=20packets=20from=20the=20neighb= or=20on=20the=20interface=20be=20installed=20directly=20in=20the=20routin= g=20table=20as=20nexthop. Regards Leela DISCLAIMER: -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------------------- The=20contents=20of=20this=20e-mail=20and=20any=20attachment(s)=20are=20c= onfidential=20and=20intended=20for=20the=20named=20recipient(s)=20only.= =20 It=20shall=20not=20attach=20any=20liability=20on=20the=20originator=20or= =20HCL=20or=20its=20affiliates.=20Any=20views=20or=20opinions=20presented= =20in=20 this=20email=20are=20solely=20those=20of=20the=20author=20and=20may=20not= =20necessarily=20reflect=20the=20opinions=20of=20HCL=20or=20its=20affilia= tes.=20 Any=20form=20of=20reproduction,=20dissemination,=20copying,=20disclosure,= =20modification,=20distribution=20and=20/=20or=20publication=20of=20 this=20message=20without=20the=20prior=20written=20consent=20of=20the=20a= uthor=20of=20this=20e-mail=20is=20strictly=20prohibited.=20If=20you=20hav= e=20 received=20this=20email=20in=20error=20please=20delete=20it=20and=20notif= y=20the=20sender=20immediately.=20Before=20opening=20any=20mail=20and=20 attachments=20please=20check=20them=20for=20viruses=20and=20defect. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------------------------- --_000_0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486FCHNHCLTEVS07H_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,

The=20RFC5120=20has=20defined=20a=20separate=20TLV= (=20TLV#235,237)=20for carrying=20addresses=20corresponding=20to=20each=20topology=20with=20the= =20corresponding=20MT-ID. It=20says=20that=20this=20is=20an=20extension=20of=20the=20extended=20IPv= 4/v6=20reachability=20TLVs defined=20in=20an=20earlier=20RFC3784.=20The=20RFC1195=20which=20defines= =20extensions=20for=20ISIS for=20IP=20has=20defined=20a=20separate=20TLV=20for=20carrying=20interfac= e=20addresses.=20There=20is=20no mention=20of=20extensions=20to=20this=20TLV=20in=20the=20MT-ISIS=20rfc512= 0.=20So,=20will=20the interface=20addresses=20also=20be=20carried=20in=20the=20new=20TLV#235=20= or=20in=20the=20sub-tlv=20of=20the MT=20IS=20Reachability=20TLV=20(=20#222).=20The=20 extended=20IS=20T= LV=20format=20used=20in TLV#222=20and=20defined=20in=20rfc3784=20says=20that=20the=20ip=20(=20loc= al=20and=20remote)=20address=20sub-tlv of=20the=20interface=20is=20optional=20in=20non-TE=20cases.=20So=20its=20= not=20clear=20where=20the interface=20address=20to=20MT-ID=20association=20is=20carried.=20 &n= bsp;The=20interface address=20may=20be=20needed=20to=20install=20a=20next=20hop=20(=20ipv4/v6= )=20address=20in=20a=20route.=20Or=20can the=20MAC=20address=20of=20the=20interface=20received=20in=20the=20packet= s=20from=20the=20neighbor=20on the=20interface=20be=20installed=20directly=20in=20the=20routing=20table= =20as=20nexthop.

 

Regards
Leela

DISCLAIME=
R:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------------

The=20contents=20of=20this=20e-mail=20and=20any=20attachment(s)=20are=20c=
onfidential=20and=20intended=20for=20the=20named=20recipient(s)=20only.=
=20
It=20shall=20not=20attach=20any=20liability=20on=20the=20originator=20or=
=20HCL=20or=20its=20affiliates.=20Any=20views=20or=20opinions=20presented=
=20in=20
this=20email=20are=20solely=20those=20of=20the=20author=20and=20may=20not=
=20necessarily=20reflect=20the=20opinions=20of=20HCL=20or=20its=20affilia=
tes.=20
Any=20form=20of=20reproduction,=20dissemination,=20copying,=20disclosure,=
=20modification,=20distribution=20and=20/=20or=20publication=20of=20
this=20message=20without=20the=20prior=20written=20consent=20of=20the=20a=
uthor=20of=20this=20e-mail=20is=20strictly=20prohibited.=20If=20you=20hav=
e=20
received=20this=20email=20in=20error=20please=20delete=20it=20and=20notif=
y=20the=20sender=20immediately.=20Before=20opening=20any=20mail=20and=20
attachments=20please=20check=20them=20for=20viruses=20and=20defect.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------------
--_000_0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486FCHNHCLTEVS07H_-- From ginsberg@cisco.com Fri Dec 4 01:45:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA113A68AD for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:45:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pt1IGEA4cwpV for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:45:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA563A67F5 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:45:18 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEAK5oGEurR7H+/2dsb2JhbACEOJYXoy6Gf5BLgS+CLFcEgWc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,340,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="113989121" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2009 09:45:10 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB49jAOw019639; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:45:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.106]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:45:10 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:45:08 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS Thread-Index: Acp0sBEdFWuRQ1dISzSFDIUGZNjpNQAFjflw References: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" To: "Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech" , , "Naiming Shen (naiming)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2009 09:45:10.0185 (UTC) FILETIME=[782A1190:01CA74C6] Cc: "Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:45:19 -0000 TGVlbGEgLQ0KDQpJbnRlcmZhY2UgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFyZSB0b3BvbG9neSBpbmRlcGVuZGVudC4g VGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gbmVlZCB0byBhc3NvY2lhdGUgdGhlIGludGVyZmFjZSBhZGRyZXNzIHdpdGgg YSBzcGVjaWZpYyB0b3BvbG9neS4NCg0KICAgTGVzDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl LS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogaXNpcy13Zy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86aXNpcy13Zy1i b3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbg0KPiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgTGVlbGEgSmFuYWtpIFAgLSBFUlMsIEhD TCBUZWNoDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAwMywgMjAwOSAxMTowNSBQTQ0KPiBU bzogaXNpcy13Z0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgTmFpbWluZyBTaGVuIChuYWltaW5nKTsgJ25zaGV0aEBqdW5p cGVyLm5ldCcNCj4gQ2M6IFZpamF5YW5hbmQgQyAtIEVSUywgSENMIFRlY2gNCj4gU3ViamVjdDog W0lzaXMtd2ddIFNlbmRpbmcgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBpbiBNVC1JU0lTDQo+IA0KPiBI ZWxsbywNCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBSRkM1MTIwIGhhcyBkZWZpbmVkIGEgc2VwYXJhdGUgVExWKCBUTFYj MjM1LDIzNykgZm9yIGNhcnJ5aW5nDQo+IGFkZHJlc3NlcyBjb3JyZXNwb25kaW5nIHRvIGVhY2gg dG9wb2xvZ3kgd2l0aCB0aGUgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyBNVC1JRC4NCj4gSXQgc2F5cyB0aGF0IHRo aXMgaXMgYW4gZXh0ZW5zaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBleHRlbmRlZCBJUHY0L3Y2IHJlYWNoYWJpbGl0eQ0K PiBUTFZzIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gYW4gZWFybGllciBSRkMzNzg0LiBUaGUgUkZDMTE5NSB3aGljaCBk ZWZpbmVzDQo+IGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgZm9yIElTSVMgZm9yIElQIGhhcyBkZWZpbmVkIGEgc2VwYXJh dGUgVExWIGZvciBjYXJyeWluZw0KPiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYWRkcmVzc2VzLiBUaGVyZSBpcyBubyBt ZW50aW9uIG9mIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgdG8gdGhpcyBUTFYgaW4NCj4gdGhlIE1ULUlTSVMgcmZjNTEy MC4gU28sIHdpbGwgdGhlIGludGVyZmFjZSBhZGRyZXNzZXMgYWxzbyBiZSBjYXJyaWVkDQo+IGlu IHRoZSBuZXcgVExWIzIzNSBvciBpbiB0aGUgc3ViLXRsdiBvZiB0aGUgTVQgSVMgUmVhY2hhYmls aXR5IFRMViAoDQo+ICMyMjIpLiBUaGUgIGV4dGVuZGVkIElTIFRMViBmb3JtYXQgdXNlZCBpbiBU TFYjMjIyIGFuZCBkZWZpbmVkIGluDQo+IHJmYzM3ODQgc2F5cyB0aGF0IHRoZSBpcCAoIGxvY2Fs IGFuZCByZW1vdGUpIGFkZHJlc3Mgc3ViLXRsdiBvZiB0aGUNCj4gaW50ZXJmYWNlIGlzIG9wdGlv bmFsIGluIG5vbi1URSBjYXNlcy4gU28gaXRzIG5vdCBjbGVhciB3aGVyZSB0aGUNCj4gaW50ZXJm YWNlIGFkZHJlc3MgdG8gTVQtSUQgYXNzb2NpYXRpb24gaXMgY2FycmllZC4gICBUaGUgaW50ZXJm YWNlDQo+IGFkZHJlc3MgbWF5IGJlIG5lZWRlZCB0byBpbnN0YWxsIGEgbmV4dCBob3AgKCBpcHY0 L3Y2KSBhZGRyZXNzIGluIGENCj4gcm91dGUuIE9yIGNhbiB0aGUgTUFDIGFkZHJlc3Mgb2YgdGhl IGludGVyZmFjZSByZWNlaXZlZCBpbiB0aGUgcGFja2V0cw0KPiBmcm9tIHRoZSBuZWlnaGJvciBv biB0aGUgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGJlIGluc3RhbGxlZCBkaXJlY3RseSBpbiB0aGUgcm91dGluZw0KPiB0 YWJsZSBhcyBuZXh0aG9wLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBSZWdhcmRzDQo+IExlZWxhDQo+IA0KPiBE SVNDTEFJTUVSOg0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBjb250ZW50cyBvZiB0aGlzIGUtbWFp bCBhbmQgYW55IGF0dGFjaG1lbnQocykgYXJlIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCBhbmQNCj4gaW50ZW5kZWQg Zm9yIHRoZSBuYW1lZCByZWNpcGllbnQocykgb25seS4NCj4gSXQgc2hhbGwgbm90IGF0dGFjaCBh bnkgbGlhYmlsaXR5IG9uIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hdG9yIG9yIEhDTCBvciBpdHMNCj4gYWZmaWxpYXRl cy4gQW55IHZpZXdzIG9yIG9waW5pb25zIHByZXNlbnRlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGFyZSBzb2xl bHkNCj4gdGhvc2Ugb2YgdGhlIGF1dGhvciBhbmQgbWF5IG5vdCBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSByZWZsZWN0 IHRoZSBvcGluaW9ucyBvZiBIQ0wNCj4gb3IgaXRzIGFmZmlsaWF0ZXMuDQo+IEFueSBmb3JtIG9m IHJlcHJvZHVjdGlvbiwgZGlzc2VtaW5hdGlvbiwgY29weWluZywgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSwNCj4gbW9k aWZpY2F0aW9uLCBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gYW5kIC8gb3IgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgdGhpcyBtZXNz YWdlIHdpdGhvdXQNCj4gdGhlIHByaW9yIHdyaXR0ZW4gY29uc2VudCBvZiB0aGUgYXV0aG9yIG9m IHRoaXMgZS1tYWlsIGlzIHN0cmljdGx5DQo+IHByb2hpYml0ZWQuIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2Vp dmVkIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IgcGxlYXNlIGRlbGV0ZSBpdA0KPiBhbmQgbm90aWZ5IHRo ZSBzZW5kZXIgaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkuIEJlZm9yZSBvcGVuaW5nIGFueSBtYWlsIGFuZA0KPiBhdHRh Y2htZW50cyBwbGVhc2UgY2hlY2sgdGhlbSBmb3IgdmlydXNlcyBhbmQgZGVmZWN0Lg0KPiANCj4g LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tDQo= From avinash@force10networks.com Fri Dec 4 02:18:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDCA3A68B3 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:18:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RLWcyYJR1bRN for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:18:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.force10networks.com (corp.force10networks.com [64.186.164.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECC73A68B6 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:18:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-CLUSTER-10.force10networks.com ([10.11.10.130]) by exch7-sjc-fe.force10networks.com ([10.11.0.87]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:18:20 -0800 From: Avinash Natarajan To: "Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" , "'naiming@cisco.com'" , "'nsheth@juniper.net'" Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:18:20 -0800 Thread-Topic: Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS Thread-Index: Acp0sBEdFWuRQ1dISzSFDIUGZNjpNQAF6IG+ Message-ID: <416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F2@EXCH-CLUSTER-10.force10networks.com> References: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> In-Reply-To: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F2EXCHCLUSTER10_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:18:31 -0000 --_000_416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F2EXCHCLUSTER10_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi With MT, the metric style would be wide metric. RFC1195 defines ip reac= hability tlv for narrow metric. So MT extensions for those TLVs wouldn't be= relavant. So yes, you can use 235 in lieu of 135 to carry ipv4 prefixes for a spe= cific MT#. (and i think, to carry ipv4 prefixes for MT0, you can still jus= t use 135 even when MT is configured). I don't think the Sub TLVs in extended is reachability tlvs are used in= the non-TE context. -Avinash ________________________________ From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leel= a Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech [pleela@hcl.in] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:04 PM To: isis-wg@ietf.org; 'naiming@cisco.com'; 'nsheth@juniper.net' Cc: Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech Subject: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS Hello, The RFC5120 has defined a separate TLV( TLV#235,237) for carrying addresses= corresponding to each topology with the corresponding MT-ID. It says that = this is an extension of the extended IPv4/v6 reachability TLVs defined in a= n earlier RFC3784. The RFC1195 which defines extensions for ISIS for IP has= defined a separate TLV for carrying interface addresses. There is no menti= on of extensions to this TLV in the MT-ISIS rfc5120. So, will the interface= addresses also be carried in the new TLV#235 or in the sub-tlv of the MT I= S Reachability TLV ( #222). The extended IS TLV format used in TLV#222 and= defined in rfc3784 says that the ip ( local and remote) address sub-tlv of= the interface is optional in non-TE cases. So its not clear where the inte= rface address to MT-ID association is carried. The interface address may = be needed to install a next hop ( ipv4/v6) address in a route. Or can the M= AC address of the interface received in the packets from the neighbor on th= e interface be installed directly in the routing table as nexthop. Regards Leela DISCLAIMER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------------------------- The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and inte= nded for the named recipient(s) only. It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliate= s. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect t= he opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,= distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail= is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immedia= tely. Before opening any mail and attachments please check them for viruses and defect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------------------------- --_000_416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F2EXCHCLUSTER10_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi
    With M= T, the metric style would be wide metric. RFC1195 defines ip reachability t= lv for narrow metric. So MT extensions for those TLVs wouldn't be = ;relavant.
    So yes= , you can use 235 in lieu of 135 to carry ipv4 prefixes for a specific= MT#. (and i think,  to carry ipv4 prefixes for MT0, you can still jus= t use 135 even when MT is configured).
 
    I don'= t think the Sub TLVs in extended is reachability tlvs are used in the non-T= E context.
 
-Avinash

From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [isi= s-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech [pleela@= hcl.in]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:04 PM
To: isis-wg@ietf.org; 'naiming@cisco.com'; 'nsheth@juniper.net'
Cc: Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech
Subject: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS

Hello,

The RFC5120 has defined a separate TLV( TLV#235,237)= for carrying addresses corresponding to each topology with the correspondi= ng MT-ID. It says that this is an extension of the extended IPv4/v6 reachab= ility TLVs defined in an earlier RFC3784. The RFC1195 which defines extensions for ISIS for IP has defined a separat= e TLV for carrying interface addresses. There is no mention of extensions t= o this TLV in the MT-ISIS rfc5120. So, will the interface addresses also be= carried in the new TLV#235 or in the sub-tlv of the MT IS Reachability TLV ( #222). The  extended IS T= LV format used in TLV#222 and defined in rfc3784 says that the ip ( local a= nd remote) address sub-tlv of the interface is optional in non-TE cases. So= its not clear where the interface address to MT-ID association is carried.   The interface address may be = needed to install a next hop ( ipv4/v6) address in a route. Or can the MAC = address of the interface received in the packets from the neighbor on the i= nterface be installed directly in the routing table as nexthop.

 

Regards
Leela

DISCLAIMER:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------------------

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and inte=
nded for the named recipient(s) only.=20
It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliate=
s. Any views or opinions presented in=20
this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect t=
he opinions of HCL or its affiliates.=20
Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,=
 distribution and / or publication of=20
this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail=
 is strictly prohibited. If you have=20
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immedia=
tely. Before opening any mail and=20
attachments please check them for viruses and defect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------------------------------------
--_000_416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F2EXCHCLUSTER10_-- From ginsberg@cisco.com Fri Dec 4 08:51:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DA03A69DE for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:51:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kGlQIZAPRLDT for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E80A3A688E for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:51:56 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAP7MGEurR7H+/2dsb2JhbADAKJcvhDMEgWc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,342,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="227240669" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2009 16:51:48 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB4Gplvk006776; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:51:47 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.106]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:51:47 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:51:46 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F2@EXCH-CLUSTER-10.force10networks.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS Thread-Index: Acp0sBEdFWuRQ1dISzSFDIUGZNjpNQAF6IG+AA5GulA= References: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> <416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F2@EXCH-CLUSTER-10.force10networks.com> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" To: "Avinash Natarajan" , "Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech" , , "Naiming Shen (naiming)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2009 16:51:47.0746 (UTC) FILETIME=[117FE820:01CA7502] Cc: "Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:51:57 -0000 Avinash - > -----Original Message----- > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Avinash Natarajan > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 2:18 AM > To: Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech; isis-wg@ietf.org; Naiming Shen > (naiming); 'nsheth@juniper.net' > Cc: Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS >=20 > Hi > With MT, the metric style would be wide metric. RFC1195 defines ip > reachability tlv for narrow metric. So MT extensions for those TLVs > wouldn't be relavant. > So yes, you can use 235 in lieu of 135 to carry ipv4 prefixes for a > specific MT#. (and i think, to carry ipv4 prefixes for MT0, you can > still just use 135 even when MT is configured). You cannot use TLV #235 (or 237) to advertise MTID #0 as that would not be recognized by legacy systems. See Section 7.3 in RFC 5120 "MT ID is a 12-bit field containing the non-zero ID of the topology being announced. The TLV MUST be ignored if the ID is zero. This is to ensure the consistent view of the standard unicast topology." So you MUST use 135 (or 236 for IPv6) when advertising reachability for MTID #0. IP/IPv6 reachability of course is NOT the same has IP/IPv6 interface address (host address) - which I believe is what Leela's question was about. Les >=20 > I don't think the Sub TLVs in extended is reachability tlvs are > used in the non-TE context. >=20 > -Avinash > ________________________________ >=20 > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech [pleela@hcl.in] > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:04 PM > To: isis-wg@ietf.org; 'naiming@cisco.com'; 'nsheth@juniper.net' > Cc: Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech > Subject: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS >=20 >=20 >=20 > Hello, >=20 > The RFC5120 has defined a separate TLV( TLV#235,237) for carrying > addresses corresponding to each topology with the corresponding MT-ID. > It says that this is an extension of the extended IPv4/v6 reachability > TLVs defined in an earlier RFC3784. The RFC1195 which defines > extensions for ISIS for IP has defined a separate TLV for carrying > interface addresses. There is no mention of extensions to this TLV in > the MT-ISIS rfc5120. So, will the interface addresses also be carried > in the new TLV#235 or in the sub-tlv of the MT IS Reachability TLV ( > #222). The extended IS TLV format used in TLV#222 and defined in > rfc3784 says that the ip ( local and remote) address sub-tlv of the > interface is optional in non-TE cases. So its not clear where the > interface address to MT-ID association is carried. The interface > address may be needed to install a next hop ( ipv4/v6) address in a > route. Or can the MAC address of the interface received in the packets > from the neighbor on the interface be installed directly in the routing > table as nexthop. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Regards > Leela >=20 > DISCLAIMER: > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------ >=20 > The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and > intended for the named recipient(s) only. > It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its > affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely > those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL > or its affiliates. > Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, > modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without > the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it > and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and > attachments please check them for viruses and defect. >=20 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------ From avinash@force10networks.com Fri Dec 4 09:29:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861663A67EC for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:29:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83cE2bvHgN-y for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.force10networks.com (corp.force10networks.com [64.186.164.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807833A676A for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-CLUSTER-10.force10networks.com ([10.11.10.130]) by exch7-sjc-fe.force10networks.com ([10.11.0.87]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:29:21 -0800 From: Avinash Natarajan To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" , "Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" , "Naiming Shen (naiming)" , "nsheth@juniper.net" Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:29:21 -0800 Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS Thread-Index: Acp0sBEdFWuRQ1dISzSFDIUGZNjpNQAF6IG+AA5GulAAAQSPCg== Message-ID: <416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F6@EXCH-CLUSTER-10.force10networks.com> References: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> <416CE5A986F9B84788C079EE163B21EA03239D90F2@EXCH-CLUSTER-10.force10networks.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:29:31 -0000 Hi Les I meant 235 in lieu of 135 to carry ipv4 prefixes for a non-zero MT lik= e MT1. I had specified use of 135 for MT0, but didn't specify it as a MUST,= which is an ambiguity from my side. If the question was specific to interface addresses and not prefixes, t= hen i guess your initial response to the query holds. Thanks. -Avinash ________________________________________ From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [ginsberg@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 8:51 AM To: Avinash Natarajan; Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech; isis-wg@ietf.org; Na= iming Shen (naiming); nsheth@juniper.net Cc: Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS Avinash - > -----Original Message----- > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Avinash Natarajan > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 2:18 AM > To: Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech; isis-wg@ietf.org; Naiming Shen > (naiming); 'nsheth@juniper.net' > Cc: Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS > > Hi > With MT, the metric style would be wide metric. RFC1195 defines ip > reachability tlv for narrow metric. So MT extensions for those TLVs > wouldn't be relavant. > So yes, you can use 235 in lieu of 135 to carry ipv4 prefixes for a > specific MT#. (and i think, to carry ipv4 prefixes for MT0, you can > still just use 135 even when MT is configured). You cannot use TLV #235 (or 237) to advertise MTID #0 as that would not be recognized by legacy systems. See Section 7.3 in RFC 5120 "MT ID is a 12-bit field containing the non-zero ID of the topology being announced. The TLV MUST be ignored if the ID is zero. This is to ensure the consistent view of the standard unicast topology." So you MUST use 135 (or 236 for IPv6) when advertising reachability for MTID #0. IP/IPv6 reachability of course is NOT the same has IP/IPv6 interface address (host address) - which I believe is what Leela's question was about. Les > > I don't think the Sub TLVs in extended is reachability tlvs are > used in the non-TE context. > > -Avinash > ________________________________ > > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech [pleela@hcl.in] > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:04 PM > To: isis-wg@ietf.org; 'naiming@cisco.com'; 'nsheth@juniper.net' > Cc: Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech > Subject: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS > > > > Hello, > > The RFC5120 has defined a separate TLV( TLV#235,237) for carrying > addresses corresponding to each topology with the corresponding MT-ID. > It says that this is an extension of the extended IPv4/v6 reachability > TLVs defined in an earlier RFC3784. The RFC1195 which defines > extensions for ISIS for IP has defined a separate TLV for carrying > interface addresses. There is no mention of extensions to this TLV in > the MT-ISIS rfc5120. So, will the interface addresses also be carried > in the new TLV#235 or in the sub-tlv of the MT IS Reachability TLV ( > #222). The extended IS TLV format used in TLV#222 and defined in > rfc3784 says that the ip ( local and remote) address sub-tlv of the > interface is optional in non-TE cases. So its not clear where the > interface address to MT-ID association is carried. The interface > address may be needed to install a next hop ( ipv4/v6) address in a > route. Or can the MAC address of the interface received in the packets > from the neighbor on the interface be installed directly in the routing > table as nexthop. > > > > Regards > Leela > > DISCLAIMER: > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------ > > The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and > intended for the named recipient(s) only. > It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its > affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely > those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL > or its affiliates. > Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, > modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without > the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it > and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and > attachments please check them for viruses and defect. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------= From naiming@cisco.com Fri Dec 4 11:48:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5FE03A6A48 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:48:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G8fok+A+4LIb for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1601B3A6A1F for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:48:37 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,343,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="114296048" Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2009 19:48:28 +0000 Received: from [171.71.134.60] (naiming-linux.cisco.com [171.71.134.60]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB4JmS4N017412; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:48:28 GMT Message-ID: <4B19678C.2040005@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:48:28 -0800 From: Naiming Shen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech" References: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> In-Reply-To: <0FB8687322BDB44381952C8B5066CE2F0651C2486F@CHN-HCLT-EVS07.HCLT.CORP.HCL.IN> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "'nsheth@juniper.net'" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" , "Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech" Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Sending interface addresses in MT-ISIS X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:48:37 -0000 Basically you carry this now in TLV# 235, if that interface is part of that specific MT(s) in M-ISIS. Since RFC 3784, the concept of an Interface Address as a prefix for ISIS is removed, and there is no need to make such an distinction. thanks. - Naiming Leela Janaki P - ERS, HCL Tech said the following on 12/03/09 23:04: > Hello, > > The RFC5120 has defined a separate TLV( TLV#235,237) for carrying > addresses corresponding to each topology with the corresponding MT-ID. > It says that this is an extension of the extended IPv4/v6 reachability > TLVs defined in an earlier RFC3784. The RFC1195 which defines extensions > for ISIS for IP has defined a separate TLV for carrying interface > addresses. There is no mention of extensions to this TLV in the MT-ISIS > rfc5120. So, will the interface addresses also be carried in the new > TLV#235 or in the sub-tlv of the MT IS Reachability TLV ( #222). The > extended IS TLV format used in TLV#222 and defined in rfc3784 says that > the ip ( local and remote) address sub-tlv of the interface is optional > in non-TE cases. So its not clear where the interface address to MT-ID > association is carried. The interface address may be needed to install > a next hop ( ipv4/v6) address in a route. Or can the MAC address of the > interface received in the packets from the neighbor on the interface be > installed directly in the routing table as nexthop. > > > > Regards > Leela > > DISCLAIMER: > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. > It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in > this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates. > Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of > this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and > attachments please check them for viruses and defect. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From premalathakuppan@gmail.com Tue Dec 22 02:05:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: isis-wg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71293A6B26 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:05:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.854 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oDhILFsL01Tv for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:05:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f203.google.com (mail-qy0-f203.google.com [209.85.221.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351BA3A6B21 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:05:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by qyk41 with SMTP id 41so2967034qyk.29 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:04:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=hnso/+ZpgkIdrud7Mjndxsa0v4o6TEDlMaKYbC8tX2E=; b=GEumrmycicnm7WYfIg8nuNDVOSjW03COeQ1SiGf3x5DmSkF2IMaWhVLq3sfoDW6vL6 ZSGRZiMtM+ElLa1Rk5MjG0d8Jiym39mIYb8GvUVzUT1GrOGcedGQuUYpTPF70ysInuyg 4CWZRjraLzXE/6lm+b9Kw7kB72C3MM5I55O2U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=vdtRvXtZKxCQi8m3IRmJKAM+EDt9mM+0Pxc2WlP+Ey1QD7nzrvq1bARarfpMhiCpFG whQg4en5qFu1cwVJwVngpgP55tQaLWHSy3rvc9kXoETtWldJFl8qfKFozVMlx98x2y2z WnA8ZgjUdkSWbfl6OQ6uaP03oEiSh5QkFdhEA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.32.10 with SMTP id a10mr3655823qcd.105.1261476289922; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:04:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:34:49 +0530 Message-ID: <7c128f890912220204j2f6fbe53u58752c30236579b6@mail.gmail.com> From: Premalatha Kuppan To: isis-wg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364eeec0274776047b4e566e Subject: [Isis-wg] Reg: IS-IS MT X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:15:59 -0000 --0016364eeec0274776047b4e566e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I have a doubt regarding IS-IS Multi-topology implementation. RFC-5120 says, "Each MT MUST run its own instance of the decision process and The results of each computation SHOULD be stored in a separate Routing Information Base (RIB)". How it is implemented ? Also will there be multiple FIBs, if so how ? Kindly clarify. Thanks, Prem --0016364eeec0274776047b4e566e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

= I have a doubt regarding IS-IS Multi-topology implementation.

RFC-5120 says,
"Each M=
T MUST run its own instance of the decision process and The results of each computation SH=
OULD be stored in a separate
Routing Information = Base (RIB)".
<= br style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">How it is implemented ? Also will there be multip= le FIBs, if so how ?
Kindly clarify.

<= span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">Thanks,
Prem
--0016364eeec0274776047b4e566e--