[rbridge] [Pppext] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID
stbryant at cisco.com
Wed Jun 1 09:10:54 PDT 2011
On 01/06/2011 16:50, James Carlson wrote:
> Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>> All that said, I don't really care. This is a tempest in a teapot. I
>>> can mash together both texts if the Routing ADs are willing to accept a
>>> passing reference here to a draft that, in their words, hasn't even been
>>> considered by the IS-IS community.
>> I believe that any departure from the text in ISO10589 needs
>> to be discussed in the ISIS WG.
> "Any" departure? No matter how subservient? That seems as inflexible
> as the other end of this spectrum.
> If I suggested text like this, would it require ISIS WG discussion, and,
> if so, what's the chance that this discussion would terminate in a
> positive way?
> 3. An implementation that has only PPP links might have no
> Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) that can form an IS-IS
> System ID. Resolving that issue is outside the scope of this
> document, however it is strongly RECOMMENDED that all TRILL
> implementations have at least one zero-configuration mechanism to
> obtain a valid System ID. Refer to ISO/IEC 10589 regarding System
> ID uniqueness requirements.
You are OK up to here since you conform to the current ISIS spec.
> Alternative solutions to this issue
> may also be defined in the future; see  for an example.
This needs to be discussed in the ISIS WG, and I cannot vouch
for the outcome.
More information about the rbridge