Subject: [Pppext] [Fwd: Re: [rbridge] proposed TRILL IS-IS System ID text]

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:15:57 -0500

This message was somehow lost in the ether.  I've contacted ietf-action
to see if they can dig up any information.  In any event, sorry, Anoop,
for the inadvertent delay.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email-masked]>

Subject: Re: [rbridge] [Pppext] proposed TRILL IS-IS System ID text
From: Anoop Ghanwani <[email-masked]>
To: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Cc: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 17:01:35 -0800

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:34 PM, James Carlson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> At a minimum, I want to hear from IS-IS and TRILL experts before I go
> ahead with proposing any new random-number-based System ID mechanism.
> If they sign on, then I'll go ahead with it.
>
> But my off-the-cuff guess is that they'll have objections, and more
> objections probably aren't helpful in getting to consensus.

Coming from the TRILL part of the world, I don't think this is a problem
that needs to be addressed in this draft.  Generating a unique System ID
for IS-IS is an IS-IS problem, and as such should be addressed in the IS-IS
working group.

Anoop