Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] 3way handshake TLV & Cisco

From: "Terry Canning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:02:54 +0100

Hi Naiming

Thanks for that.

I guess what you are saying is the the Cisco IIHs do support the 3 way
handshaking TLV however they leave out the "Extended local Circuit ID"
field. 

But what use is the handshake without this field. If you receive one of
these IIHs what should you put in the "Neighbour Extended local circuit ID"
of the IIH you reply with? Should you leave this empty and only populate the
"Neighbor System ID field"

I guess that would work OK but obviously wouldn't cover the scenario whereby
the link is moved to another interface.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: Naiming Shen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 15 August 2002 09:50
To: Canning, Terry [IRE07:GL52:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] 3way handshake TLV & Cisco 

Terry,

	this is from the draft:

   Any system that supports this mechanism MUST include Adjacency

   Three-Way State field in this option. The other fields in this option

   SHOULD be included as explained below in section 3.2.

the "Extended Local Circuit ID" belong to "SHOULD", but not "MUST".

cheers.

 ] This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
understand

 ] this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

 ] 

 ] ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24435.1A3470B8

 ] Content-Type: text/plain;

 ] 	charset="iso-8859-1"

 ] 

 ] Folks 

 ] 

 ] I have been exmaining an point to point IIH produced by a Cisco running
IOS

 ] Version 11.0 and come across a TLV with the type value set to 0xF0. This

 ] happens to be the same type value as the 3 way handshake TLV. As the
value

 ] in this Cisco TLV does not contain an "Extended Local Circuit ID", I can

 ] only assume that they must be using this for a proprietary TLV. Does
anyone

 ] know anything about this?

 ] 

 ] 

 ] 

 ] Thanks 

 ] 

 ] Terry Canning

 ] 

 ] 

 ] ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24435.1A3470B8

 ] Content-Type: text/html;

 ] 	charset="iso-8859-1"

 ] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 ] 

 ] <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

 ] <HTML>

 ] <HEAD>

 ] <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =

 ] charset=3Diso-8859-1">

 ] <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =

 ] 5.5.2655.35">

 ] <TITLE>3way handshake TLV &amp; Cisco </TITLE>

 ] </HEAD>

 ] <BODY>

 ] 

 ] <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Folks </FONT>

 ] </P>

 ] 

 ] <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I have been exmaining an point to point IIH produced =

 ] by a Cisco running IOS Version 11.0 and come across a TLV with the type =

 ] value set to 0xF0. This happens to be the same type value as the 3 way =

 ] handshake TLV. As the value in this Cisco TLV does not contain an =

 ] &quot;Extended Local Circuit ID&quot;, I can only assume that they must =

 ] be using this for a proprietary TLV. Does anyone know anything about =

 ] this?</FONT></P>

 ] <BR>

 ] <BR>

 ] 

 ] <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks </FONT>

 ] </P>

 ] 

 ] <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Terry Canning</FONT>

 ] </P>

 ] 

 ] </BODY>

 ] </HTML>

 ] ------_=_NextPart_001_01C24435.1A3470B8--

 ] 

 ] _______________________________________________

 ] Isis-wg mailing list

 ] [email-masked]

 ] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

- Naiming

---

From: Dave Katz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:57:05 -0700 (PDT)

This is backward compatibility to the original 3-way proposal, which only
had the state field.  The introduction in the draft describes the scenarios
in which this was (and still is) useful even without the extra gorp.

--Dave

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg