Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Another doc for WG acceptance

From: "DUBOIS Nicolas RD-CORE-ISS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:03:07 +0100

Hi,

I read quickly through this draft and I feel it is interesting for
future use.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-isis-link-attr-01.txt

I have one suggestion regarding this draft :

One more bit could be defined with the following meaning:
"Graceful restart support has been successfully negociated on that link
i.e. GR TLV is included by both routers in the IIHs".

One issue I think we have with graceful restart as it is currently
defined is: "a neighbouring router do not know if graceful restart will
be working on all links of the restarting router, for instance because
someone forgot to configure it on one of the other neighbouring routers.
And to me GR is really efficient in a network only if it is supported on
all ISIS links of one restarting router.

What do you think ?

Best regards,

Nicolas

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of David Ward
Sent: jeudi 11 novembre 2004 16:23
To: [email-masked]; Christian E Hopps; [email-masked]
Subject: [Isis-wg] Another doc for WG acceptance

All -
	We left a doc off our list yesterday for consideration for
becoming a WG doc. 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-isis-link-attr-01.txt

Unless there is objection, it will be accepted as a WG document in 30
days.

DWard and CHopps

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

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

---

From: mike shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:02:01 +0000

>all ISIS links of one restarting router.

Nicolas,

I'm not sure what you are proposing doing with this information. How would 
a router alter its behavior depending on whether its neighbor had one or 
more other links to routers which did not support restart?

Are you suggesting that there is some benefit in this information being 
flooded to all nodes?

If not, why use this mechanism to disseminate it?

I agree that restart capability needs to exist on all links for it to be 
truly useful.

Mike

---

From: "DUBOIS Nicolas RD-CORE-ISS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:12:20 +0100

Mike,

Thanks for your interest, some answers and comments inline,

Nicolas

-----Original Message-----
From: mike shand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: jeudi 9 décembre 2004 12:02
To: DUBOIS Nicolas RD-CORE-ISS
Cc: David Ward; [email-masked]; Christian E Hopps
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Another doc for WG acceptance

At 11:03 09/12/2004 +0100, DUBOIS Nicolas RD-CORE-ISS wrote:
>And to me GR is really efficient in a network only if it is supported 
>on all ISIS links of one restarting router.

Nicolas,

I'm not sure what you are proposing doing with this information. How would a router alter its behavior depending on whether its neighbor had one or more other links to routers which did not support restart?

>>I think it could decide to bring down the adjacency, trigger SPF, flood LSP and to some extent ignore the GR process.

Are you suggesting that there is some benefit in this information being flooded to all nodes?

>>Yes, I have the feeling it is useful that all nodes have a clear view of where graceful restart >is applicable and where it is not. Two possible reasons:
<	- You can expect a better and faster ISIS decision in the network in case GR is imperfectly deployed
	- Overlaying protocols like LDP,BGP or RSVP or other may be interested into that (I do not really know how at this point). 
<	

If not, why use this mechanism to disseminate it ?
>>If there is no benefit, there is no need.

I agree that restart capability needs to exist on all links for it to be truly useful.
>>And for all protocols !
>>in our case : RIP, HSRP, ISIS, LDP, BGP, MP-BGP. 

>>Thanks for your interest,
>>Nicolas

Mike