ISIS WG Minutes - 13:00 November 5th, 2013 - Georgia A
Chairs: Hannes Gredler and Chris Hopps
Scribe: Acee Lindem acee.lindem@ericsson.com

 - Document Status (see slides) - Hannes
    * See expired WG drafts that are not being pursured.

 - Flooding Scope LSPs (see slides) - Les Ginsberg
   * Not backwards compatible
   * 16 bit Extended TLVs and sub-TLVs added
   * Allows for 64K types and length but still limited to
     LSP length.

   Uma Chunduri - Any changes to existing TLVs in LSPs?
   Les: No. New LSPs types for specific purpose. For example,
     the link-scoped LSPs.
   Uma: What is the use case?
   Les: Link scoped appointed forwarding information. Right
     now it is sent in hellos and they may exceed the hello
     length.


 - Uni-directional Links (see slides) - Les Ginsberg
   * Additional UDL sub-TLVs required - these are already specified in
     hellos for normal adjacencies.
   * Clarified BFD and Graceful Restart
      * No support for RFC 5306 or RFC 6213.

  Dino Farinacci: What if there multiple ISTs?
  Les: Not supported.
  Dino: Could they made separate VLANs and be supported?
  Les: Yes

 - Per-node ISIS Admin Tages (see slides) - Chris Bowers
   * Mechanism to avoid or prefer a node for administrative
     reasons.
   * Existing TLV usage to preserve TLV space?
   Les: No intention to associate tags with prefix or address?
   Chris: Yes
   Robin Li; Node color or link color?
   Hannes: New admin constraints based on node properties - not
    link.
   Ahmed Brashandy: Could you accomplish the same with links?
   Hannes: Need to color lots of links as well as neighbor
     links. Would be unwieldy.
   Chris: Node level requirements exist.
   Hannes: Final disposition is that a new dedicated TLV will
    be used rather than an existing one.

 - ISIS Segment Routing Extensions (see slides) - Stefano Previdi
   * SID/Label TLVs and sub-TLVs contents and semantics (see slides)
   Lucy Yong: How do handle backward compatibility for label
       reservation?
   Stefano: Implementation dependent.
   Lucy: Partial deployment possible?
   Stefano: Yes - interoperability with RSVP and LDP is supported.
   Hannes: Covered in SPRING WG discussion.
   Robin: Label allocation should comply with existing RFC 3031.
          This is very complex.
   Stefano: Reserved global label space preferred. Can
   Jeff Tantsura: Index is useful for implementations with
           hard-coded label ranges.

 - ISIS MRT Extensions (see slides) - Robin Li
     * Defines TLVs for MRT computation (see slides)
     * Asked for WG Adoption
   Acee: When base MRT drafts are accepted in RTG WG, it
     makes sense to request acceptance of companion drafts
     in ISIS and OSPF. This is very close.

 - ISIS Auto-Configuration (see slides) - Leo Liubing
     * Plug and play requirement
     * No conflict with TRILL auto-configuration.
     * Uses Router Hardware fingerprint from OSPFv3
       autoconfiguration.
     * Received comment that will be addressed in next
       revision.
     * Is ISIS WG interested in work?

   Ian Farrer: Deutsche Telekom thinks it useful work and is
     plannig to use ISIS in its home-net router deployment.
   John Messenger: Will ISIS be configured on by default?
   Leo: Yes
   John: Will be a problem if both OSPF and ISIS are
     defaulted to be active.

 - ISIS based Multicast Distribution Trees (See slides) - Lucy Yong.
    * No need for PIM.
    * Multi-level tree allows areas to be traversed.
    * Overlay of Virtual Network for BUM traffic
    * See slides for details.
    * There will be demo at Bits N' Bytes.
    Acee: Do you have proto-type demonstration?
    Lucy: Yes
    Albert: Is there MOSPF planned as well?
    Lucy: OSPF is in our plan as well.
    Albert: Problems with PIM?
    Lucy: PIM has scaling problems.
    Dino: Same as TRILL solution?
    Lucy: Similar but multi-level is supported.
    Dino: Bi-direction trees in MOSPF as well?
    Lucy: Yes - it will support.