Minutes for ISIS at IETF-96
minutes-96-isis-1

IS-IS WG Agenda IETF-96
Time Slot (90m): Wednesday, July 20th, 2016 1550-1720 CEST
Chairs: Christian Hopps and Hannes Gredler 
Scribe: Acee Lindem (acee@cisco.com)

- Intro, Adminastriva, Document Status (See slides) 
  Presenter: Chris Hopps
   Les Ginsberg: Did we not move L2 bundles past WG call?
   Hannes: It is pending my shepherd's report.
   Acee: IS-IS YANG is waiting on Ops-state discussion conclusion.
     I think it is fully featured and ready from a content 
     standpoint. Will discuss at the next IS-IS YANG model call. 
   Chris Bowers: The MRT mechanism is complete but have to decouple
     a controlled convergence timer that we need to decouple from 
     MRT in a separate RTG WG draft. 

- Update to IS-IS Multi-Instance (See slides)
  Presenter: Les Ginsberg
  Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis
   Les: Ready for WG last call? 
   Chris: One implementation originally implemented the behavior 
     according to the draft. 
   Chris: Who thinks it is ready? 
    Room: A few
   Chris Who objects to it going to WG last call?
    Room: None

- ISIS Auto-Configuration
  Presenter: Bing Liu (Leo)
  Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf/
   Ian Farber: The question I meant to ask is "How do you know when 
    you've synchronized with all your neighbors?" The text doesn't 
    address this. 
   Leo: One minute should be reasonable for home network. But may not
    be right for larger network. 
   Hannes: May want to measure LSP arrival rates to determine   
    convergence. 
   Les: Problem is not database synchronization. It is how long do you
    wait to discover all your neighbors? 
   Chris: This is ONLY for duplication protection? 
   Leo: It is not duplicate detection. It is for startup mode before
    network is available. 
   Leo: Requests last call. 
   Chris: I noticed in a TBD in the text. The WG Last Call will happen
    on the list after open questions resolved. 
   Ian: TBD is removed in the latest version. 


- Update to RFC 5316
  Presenter: Mach Chen
  Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-isis-rfc5316bis
   Mach: WG adoption? 
   Chris: Is this the same change we made in draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01?
   Mach: Yes.
   Chris: Anyone object to adopting this draft?
   Room: No one. 
   Chris: I think we should move quick on this one. We will take this 
    the adoption to the list.

- IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing
  Presenter: Stefano Previdi
  Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/
   Chris: So effectively TLV is really "SR Additional Algorithms"?
   Stefano: Yes - it is really the backward compatibility question? 
            Must poll implementations for backward compatibility on change to text
            to unconditionally support algorithm 0? 
   Alia: Perhaps Juniper may want to look at their implementation to see if it
         impacted by the backward compatibility issue. 

- IS-IS extensions for SPRING Multicast
  Presenter: David Allan
  Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-allan-isis-spring-multicast
   Dave: Not looking for WG adoption. Contingent on PIM WG acceptance.
   Stafano: Computation is based on topology. Is it confined to area? 
   Dave: Currently, it is but one could postulate a multi-area computation. It 
     would be a new draft. 
   Chris: Should IS-IS and OSPF meet together for items like this that are
     presented in both WGs.  
   Alia: I think it would be an interesting experiment to meet together for 
     proposal like this. 
   Chris: Some overlap. 
   Alia: PIM and MBONED have joint meetings. I don't the RTG WG is the right 
     WG for everything that hits more than one WG. 
   Hannes: No reference to multi-topology in the draft? Is it limited? 
   Dave: You could do it for multi-topology? However, you'd drive up the
     computation linearly. 
   Hannes: Not pushing for relaxation - just needs to be specified. 
   Dave: Not sure it is a good idea but we left this out intentionally to 
     make it agnostic.
   Hannes: Some networks have non-congruent topologies for IPv4 and IPv6.
   Ahmed: Draft is already referencing multi-topology TLVs so it is supported
     by definition. 

- Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS
  Presenter: Jeff Tantsura
  Document: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tantsura-isis-segment-routing-msd
    Chris: TLV is 32 bits but value only requires 8 bits. 
    Jeff: WG adoption? Microsoft wants this? 
    Les: Usage of MSD 0 is inconsistent with MSD draft in PCE. 
    Jeff: MSD 0 means the router can't push any labels on the label stack.
    Ahmed Bashandy: What is the link MSD? 
    Jeff: This is for the traffic being egressed from this node. Can  only 
     push this number of labels on the MPLS label stack.
    Chris: Does anyone object to WG adoption?
    Room: No one. 
    Chris: Does anyone support it? 
    Room: A few. 
    Chris: Will take to the list.
      
- Carrying Geo Coordinates Information In IS-IS
  Presenter: Naiming Shen
  Document: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates
   Chris: Does one flag indicate centimeters vs meters?
   Naiming: Yes. 
   Alia: Have you talked to anyone in ART about how to do privacy with 
    GPS coordinates? 
   Naiming: No. 
   Alia: Send me an E-mail and I will send you a reference. 
   Chris: Are you seeing routers with GPS HW so they can know the value?
   Naiming: If you jitter the result - all should be done in the same. 
   Chris: I was thinking about dispatcher a support personnel. 
   Hannes: Does this apply to prefixes or the node?
   Naiming: This applies to the node not the prefixes. In BGP, could 
    apply to prefix.
   Julian Lucek: Centimeter granularity could cause flapping 
    advertisement if GPS on router is periodically polled.
   Julian: Have you considered BGP-LS? 
   Naiming: Have not considered BGP-LS yet.
   Stefano: Who is the consumer? Can you advertise it in BGP-LS 
    only? 
   Acee: We will add BGP-LS encodings in the BGP draft.
   Robert Raszuk: If you redistribute into BGP, how is this handled? 
   Enke Chen: Could associate the informaiton with a loopback. 
   Hannes: How would you handle multi-area?  
   Naiming: In the interest of time, will take discussion to the list. 
 
- IS-IS Routing fo Spine-Leaf Topology
  Presenter: Naiming Shen
  Document: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext
  Tony Przygienda: Very cool. Did you look at RPL and the dynamic ranking? 
   With the defaults, you advertise the exceptions. 
  Hannes: The problem of sparse protected nodes. One way to handle this is
   with multiple IS-IS L1 instances? 
  Chris: I think you may get into trouble with leaf-to-leaf routing. 
  Naiming: Please send this to the list. 
  Julien Meuric: I think TRILL has a similar mechanism. You may want to look
   at it. 
  Naiming: I will look at this.
  Chris: Okay, we are 5 minutes over. Let's take the discussion to the list.