Last Modified: 2005-07-12
|Done||Submit I-D on IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions|
|Done||Submit I-D on IS-IS HMAC-MD5 Authentication|
|Done||Submit I-D on Maintaining more than 255 adjacencies in IS-IS|
|Done||Submit I-D on Optional Checksums on IIHs, CSNPs, and PSNPs in IS-IS|
|Done||Submit I-D on IS-IS MIB|
|Done||Submit IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit IS-IS HMAC-MD5 Authentication to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit Maintaining more than 255 adjacencies in IS-IS to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit Optional Checksums on IIHs, CSNPs, and PSNPs in IS-IS to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit IPv6 to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit M-ISIS to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit 256+ Fragments to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit Administrative Tags to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit Interoperable IP Networks to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit Interoperable Networks to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit P2P over LAN to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit Gracefull Restart to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Jun 05||Submit Experimental TLVs to IESG for publication as an Informational RFC|
|Jun 05||Submit Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute sub-TLV to IESG for publication as Informational RFC|
|Jun 05||Submit A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags to IESG for publication as Informational RFC|
|Aug 05||Submit IS-IS MIB to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|Aug 05||Submit Multi Topology (MT) Routing in ISIS to IESG for publication as Informational RFC|
|Aug 05||Submit IS-IS extensions for advertising router information to IESG for publication as Informational RFC|
|Aug 05||Submit Routing IPv6 with IS-IS to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard|
|Nov 05||Review WG's priorities and future potential|
|RFC1195||PS||Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments|
|RFC2763||I||Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for IS-IS|
|RFC2966||I||Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS|
|RFC2973||I||IS-IS Mesh Groups|
|RFC3277||I||IS-IS Transient Blackhole Avoidance|
|RFC3358||I||Optional Checksums in ISIS|
|RFC3359||I||Reserved TLV Codepoints in ISIS|
|RFC3373||I||Three-Way Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point Adjacencies|
|RFC3567||I||Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)Cryptographic Authentication|
|RFC3719||I||Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using IS-IS|
|RFC3784||I||IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering|
|RFC3786||I||Extending the Number of IS-IS LSP Fragments Beyond the 256 Limit|
|RFC3787||I||Recommendations for Interoperable IP Networks using IS-IS|
|RFC3847||I||Restart signaling for IS-IS|
ISIS WG meeting minutes from IETF 63
Thanks to Alia Atlas for taking the minutes.
0) Status & Admin:
Dave: On track - completely amazing, but we are. In Vancouver, we're supposed to recharter, so bring items. TRILL related drafts to appear & need to see where work will be. Jumbo frames
Alex: Had conversation with IEEE about jumbo frames & we came to pretty good agreement. No objections to an informational RFC on what people do & what to look out for. They agreed to provide us with a technical advisor to give us some guidance on jumbo frames. The thinking is that we need to decide where we want to scope this work; whether it should stay here or be a design team between here & INT, because they're interested also.
Dave: ISIS-IP has come & gone & come & gone. Various meetings where people want to run IPSEC over ISIS. It might come back, but let's save discussion for Vancouver & list.
1) Multi-Instance IS-IS: Stefano Prevardi draft will be released very very soon
Stefano: Idea is to allow multiple instances of ISIS to run over the same links. Ships in the night approach. Similar approach for OSPFv3. Add an instance identifier via a new TLV and add to each ISIS packet. Mechanism intended just to distinguish multiple instances. How to forward is out of scope.
Still need to submit draft. Just flushing out the details. We're still looking at the backwards compatibility because routers not supporting this extension will silently ignore the IID TLV. think it's similar to migration from narrow metric to wide metric, so not expecting any major issues. A special IID value of 0 may be used to indicate the default topology to ease transitions.
Radia Perlman: What kind of problems do you have in mind for this to address?
Stefano: Personally no problems, but customers want ways of having separate topologies. Not sharing fate, flooding scope. Which topologies should converge first. What if topology 1 is having an SPF & topology 2 that is higher priority then needs one.
Radia: Did you have in mind something like VLANs, where you want to have totally separate networks. Then you'd probably have to
Dino: I think we're at a point where we're not sending ISH
Tony Li: Real problem I see here is to resurrect QoS routing...
Acee Lindem: Actually, in all 3 protocols, in BGP, you can mix address families. In OSPF, can have a single adjacency or have per address family/adjacency, can demux various packets. I don't think that there's a problem with being able to do this two different ways. Make it easier to debug if just want separate neighbor databases, topologies, etc.
tony Li: Thanks, don't see how that's arguing against what I'm saying. There are multiple ways
Dave Ward: Just use generic term "service separation".
Acee: Could use this to separate IPv4 versus IPv6 or unicast versus multicast topology. Any way you want to slice & dice.
Dave: Assume you want to take this to WG as an item.
Stefano: First, we have to submit a draft.
Dave: Details, details ....
Alex: Just to be clear, we're not talking about adding the ID yet to be submitted as a WG item, but talking about adding a work item to the charter.
Dino: Might want to consider having run on a different MAC address, so those not participating, won't have to hear.
Stefano: Yeah, we thought about. I'm not sure that it brings that much other than another method of complexity. Would give two levels of complexity. We're talking about control packets so not flooding much.
Dave: What it would allow is routers in an LAN where some don't support & some do. Might help with interop.
Dino: Would help with densely meshed. This might be something to add in addition, so as not to bother the single instance box.
Dave: Any comments on this. Should all welcome Hank Smith back. See you all on the list.