Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 05 August 2022 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA7BC14F748 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 20:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id thqFVqZwcIIu for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 20:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77F2CC14CF00 for <bier@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 20:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0EC0549CF9; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 05:37:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 8C2294EB672; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 05:37:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 05:37:24 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YuyQdFIf2+7f1sFv@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <165912199957.33573.9414915331218147964@ietfa.amsl.com> <BY5PR11MB43379B69C691425AA812D596C1999@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BY3PR13MB50440E58B997697B8B42D8E7F29C9@BY3PR13MB5044.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BY5PR11MB4337DEAFD21E187EF6415D98C19C9@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <YuvBgBBSshtiC6hd@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <BL0PR05MB56524F3239C23BA13DC1A90DD49F9@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB56524F3239C23BA13DC1A90DD49F9@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/-1VANfq11lK86f100ynkl313ejk>
Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 03:37:35 -0000

Yes, indeed. Thanks

YOur and my questions about the IPA fields where not answered.

In general, i think we should have some informational document "use of routing protocols with BIER-TE",
where all this salient information is captured, ideally together with examples of the IGP
signaling elements new-for-BIER-TE and existing-for-BIER and existing-for-RSVP-TE that we
imagine to be used. Ultimately, i can not even see how we would get to a working interoperable
deployment of BIER-TE with IGP-routing-information if we do not demand specific combinations
of IGP elements and how to use them, but its fine to start informational. Without any of this,
the IGP extensions are just (IMHO) undeployable.

I am btw. a big fan of distributed path calculation by the BFIR in the same way as we could
do CSPF/ERO calculation in RSVP-TE (including P2MP). Indeed, as soon as we have really compact
encodings of strict steered path/trees, such as with CRH in IPv6 unicast or RBS in BIER, i
really hope that there will be renewed interest in comparing the behavior of running path calculation
only on the ingres-PE vs. running it on every hop (and dealing with all those micro-loop issues
and limitations of distributed path calculation - no steiner trees, worse disjoint trees, etc. pp.).

Of course. Long road. Just to illustrate that i think this is not a dead end, but one which
we'll hopefully be able to make better over time.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 01:21:20PM +0000, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
> 
> This thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/EC2MQR3XytQbe2D79KMBeP1v2x8/ may be related.
> 
> Jeffrey
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 8:54 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> Cc: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@futurewei.com>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; bier@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> I would still appreciate if someone takes a look at my questions as well.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless