Subject: [Isis-wg] Three-way Handshake question

From: "Sunkad, Ravindra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:47:04 -0400

Hi,

I have a question related to the Three-Way handshake operation.

In the "Point-to-Point Adjacency State" TLV definition of
draft-ietf-isis-3way-03, length is defined to be between 5 to 17 octets.
However, I have noticed that some implementations have only the "Adjacency
State" included in this TLV. i.e. "Extended Local Circuit ID" is not
included.

What is the expected behavior on receipt of such a IIH PDU?

Thanks,
Ravi
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: "Premal Ashar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 15:03:02 -0700

Hi Ravi,

I believe that draft-ietf-isis-3way-02 did not have the "Extended Local
Circuit ID" support while draft-ietf-isis-3way-03 does have. Hence the
implementations based on 02 will not have "Extended Local Circuit ID"
support. draft-ietf-isis-3way-03 is backward compatible with
draft-ietf-isis-3way-02, so the behavior should not matter.

--<EOM>
Premal Ashar
Member of Technical Staff		Email: [email-masked]
Riverstone Networks			Tel: (408)878-6515
5200 Great America Parkway		FAX: (408)878-6501
Santa Clara, CA 95054			http://www.riverstonenet.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sunkad, Ravindra
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 3:47 PM
To: Isis-Wg@Juniper. Net
Subject: [Isis-wg] Three-way Handshake question

Hi,

Thanks,
Ravi

---

From: Henk Smit <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:24:18 -0700 (PDT)

> What is the expected behavior on receipt of such a IIH PDU?

  Be strict in what you send, be liberal in what you accept.

  The first version of the 3-way handshake used to have only the "Adjacency
 State" included. Many years after this had been implemented, the need for
 more information in the TLV arose. There are still a zillion routers out
 there that only send and understand the first byte of the TLV. The dominant
 implementation of those days luckily will ignore any extra bytes in the TLV.

  So IMHO if you know about this, you should build your implementation in
 such a way that it will be able to interoperate with these older boxes.
 Your customers will appreciate it.

    hope this helps,

                    henk.

---

From: "Rajesh Saluja" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:50:28 -0400

Ravi, Premal,
Extended Local circuit Id has been there in all versions of 3way handshake
draft. The draft is backward compatible with  the implementation containing
only "adjacency state" in the TLV.

Thanks,
Rajesh