Subject: [Isis-wg] Draft Submission

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:56:45 -0600

Members and Chairpersons of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group, 

My name is Brad Neal, and I would like to submit this draft to the list for
review.  Please take a moment to examine it, and reply with you thoughts.

Best regards,

Brad Neal
Broadwing Communications

Abstract:

This draft describes an extension to Integrated IS-IS, which can be 
used to pass additional information among routers within an IS-IS 
domain that can aid in policy administration.  This extension is 
roughly similar in function to the BGP communities attribute; in that 
it provides a mechanism to associate a routed prefix with some 
administrative group, such that an administrator may define a routing 
policy for that group.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 <<draft-neal-isis-policy-ext-00.txt>>

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:40:13 +0100 (MET)

Brad, looks to me like the OSPF tag pretty much. OSPF tag was generally
accepted as good idea in its time. In practical deployment it turned out
to not have been really used for anything. That's just my experience, 
others may disagree here. For your specific problem, I fail somehow to 
see what significant difference it makes to write policies to tag the 
prefixes from
writing the policies to filter prefixes unless you change IP addresses
in your IGP cloud often which is unlikely in IP backbones in my experience. 
This is _very_ different from the way communities
in BGP are often used, e.g. a certain peer is putting communities on 
all prefixes it learns. Those prefixes are not known a-priori. 
Given that applying policies per neighbor in IGP is a really bad 
idea IMHO, the problems solved are very different and I'm not convinced
the problem you mention is very relevant in ISIS. 

	-- tony

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