Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Mon, 23 November 2020 20:15 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
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 A1EFF3A0A20; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:15:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4D7gvhHOYvz; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:15:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2B523A0AA1; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:14:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id t3so1444523pgi.11; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:14:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zmhqpiT13Cl4AqrDhrlkjbNB9Wz2QUCjLz0sNg2NQ7E=; b=Oq6D12pSfqMrm8ycAspV+LH/HgSazruaPSG9m6j9eWTz/tyV6kEPMZ6lol/9FNIChC fT6y86eu5yqoZHLrjgF8M/vL2w269ovYT+sDKC88ufGevSlKBHqRJOhyLmRg/c70OZtc bK/d1yl2hJikiONm4sclI6Z3EiFwg5c3/ytwKEIKn5eRYwN4SYcMrACzmIftKSSZNDQh Hl6PZHFE05RDRN+cXXKrqUtsFMS1v0qQm0mEdvHPDwEy8U70uqeIB22FxCEqB17Sb4eG GDymqeZB5XLpRAng6iDj5MLYSG8j5BBKSxQ6E+CFc/K/dWbygivM8Hm82JsGc0aR8D+X vRUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zmhqpiT13Cl4AqrDhrlkjbNB9Wz2QUCjLz0sNg2NQ7E=; b=uN2J0k0yC9cFJhMsr7jqfRYa+w/oP7kCQt67zY9i4xb8oNBW4jhaVhiy7xmH7ZIHkt 506iIIkMSDZgK5RWJ+zuXRlQQBF2g7XOyR74aHqUaihVR1b/HIh83E7F9M0DXCc2L88i 7weZNj2+RWhPS+ejPfLQvtb4zUzPnd+RszK0shez9IDF0mwiExf3OrCe2KafihYrwc9V ThqSZidLd6NOsjuCS+d3kqg6Kw/KOUS8S77Pm4f5Xmno0lpGg/RqjaSOpyoAFSji8qIt aWHj1htFSWJEyRSva1fEagD5MUCtbuSYpqt/2dO/uQQnMyG0+9wzh7zZTaVHpslgG+Nz HJxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531s2gsLdJskfM8xyLAJxwjRBzC+xEd0t4B5+vgspBZ8enjUBHzA eJiVIgp+y09o6ysLcy+gHaL4QI1GcAq0BOgbFt0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZqoJYA0huMBqUsposLjUMu6pqlTFL9PdB7uLxue4TjC7FLCf22R2rA/NPwPz+claaXDaHwNaoIwEIriw34vk=
X-Received: by 2002:a65:56c8:: with SMTP id w8mr927743pgs.383.1606162482335; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:14:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV0Lj3iZyD=bux6dyZeZk6Y-y31Oa0PdXUpYFOLo=ZM7Xw@mail.gmail.com> <202011231744258912495@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202011231744258912495@zte.com.cn>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 15:14:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3saHnSoP42Cf28QwXwSUtZ_Y2Pec+EGk-4JTHEMs17mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Cc: bier@ietf.org, bier-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003613c805b4cbd866"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/3SM8oxHnKvC2_0RlsRtYPNpgQFY>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 20:15:13 -0000
Hi Ran The rev 9 looks good. I will update the Shepherd write-up. Thank you Gyan On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:44 AM <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > We have updated the draft based on your comments, the link is : > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-09> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-09. > > The main update contents are as follows: > > 1. > > remove RFC 6952 & 3631 &4272. > 2. > > remove RFC 4271 to informative references > 3. > > add RFC 5440 & 5376 to informative references and add 4655 to > normative references. > 4. > > we have just requested BIER-related BGP LS IANA codepoints,If there > is further information synced to you. > 5. > > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions/> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions/ is > the basic draft and is very important to our draft,so we would like to keep > this part of the content. We will try to contact the author of the > draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions/> to > update. > > > > Best Regards. > > Ran > > > 原始邮件 > *发件人:*GyanMishra > *收件人:*陈然00080434; > *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;bier-chairs@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org; > *日 期 :*2020年11月05日 02:25 > *主 题 :**Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of > draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07* > Thank you > > Gyan > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:41 AM <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> wrote: > >> Hi Gyan, >> >> Thank you very mch. Beacuse the submission of Internet draft has been >> closed and will be updated and submitted after opening. >> >> >> Best Regards. >> >> Ran >> >> >> >> 原始邮件 >> *发件人:*GyanMishra >> *收件人:*陈然00080434; >> *抄送人:*BIER WG;BIER WG Chairs;draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org; >> *日 期 :*2020年11月04日 05:33 >> *主 题 :**Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of >> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07* >> >> Remove RFC 4272 as a reference as well. >> >> Thanks >> >> Gyan >> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:24 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Authors, >>> I have completed the Shepherd write-up. The document is ready for >>> publication with some nits below. Once cleaned up I believe we will be >>> ready for publication. >>> >>> Attached is the idnits output. Please correct and update the draft and >>> then I will update the Shephard write-up to reflect update. >>> >>> Have the 3 BGP LS IANA codepoints been requested? I don't see them >>> listed yet on the IANA BGP-LS link below. Let me know once requested and >>> the IANA page has been updated and I will update the Shepherd writeup. >>> >>> >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml >>> >>> This draft under normative references is expired and noted in the >>> Shepherd writuep. Please find the status of the reference and if necessary >>> please get it back on track or remove. >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions/ >>> >>> I believe RFC 4271 & 4272 should be made informative references as they >>> are not normative to understand the draft. Also remove RFC 6952 & 3631 >>> completely unrelated to this draft. >>> >>> I would reference as normative RFC 8571 as that pertains to BGP-LS >>> original Day 1 original use case for RSVP TE link attribute >>> TE path computation as to why BGP-LS came into existence - as now BIER >>> use case would fall into new categorical use case for BGP-LS now being used >>> to gather BIER IGP extension information via BGP-LS to northbound to >>> PCE/Controller. >>> >>> I think PCE arch should be referenced as PCE is noted in the >>> introduction as the PCE or any centralized controller for BIER >>> provisioning. >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pce/documents/ >>> >>> I would add PECE WG RFCs RFC 4655 PCE architecture as normative and that >>> should be enough and reference in the draft where PCE is mentioned. Then I >>> would add as informative RFC 5440 & 5376. >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> Gyan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:50 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Ran >>>> >>>> I reviewed the update and it looks perfect. >>>> >>>> Thank you >>>> >>>> Gyan >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:59 AM <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Gyan, Chairs and WG, >>>>> >>>>> We have updated the draft based on the Gyran's comments.The link is >>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext/> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext/. Please >>>>> check it and see if it is OK. >>>>> >>>>> Any comments are welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards. >>>>> >>>>> Ran >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 原始邮件 >>>>> *发件人:*陈然00080434 >>>>> *收件人:*hayabusagsm@gmail.com; >>>>> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org; >>>>> bier-chairs@ietf.org; >>>>> *日 期 :*2020年10月21日 16:52 >>>>> *主 题 :**Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of >>>>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07* >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> BIER mailing list >>>>> BIER@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier >>>>> >>>>> Hi Gyan, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we will update it as >>>>> soon as possible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ran >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *发件人:*张征00007940 >>>>> *收件人:*hayabusagsm@gmail.com;陈然00080434; >>>>> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org; >>>>> bier-chairs@ietf.org; >>>>> *日 期 :*2020年10月21日 10:02 >>>>> *主 题 :**Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of >>>>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07* >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> BIER mailing list >>>>> BIER@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier >>>>> >>>>> Hi Gyan, >>>>> >>>>> Ran will consider your suggestion and make some changes. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your suggestion! >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Sandy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *发件人:*GyanMishra >>>>> *收件人:*张征00007940; >>>>> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;bier-chairs@ietf.org; >>>>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org; >>>>> *日 期 :*2020年10月21日 00:21 >>>>> *主 题 :**Re: Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07* >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sandy >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know if you are going to revise the draft and make any >>>>> updates from my suggestions, and then I can wait for that update and then >>>>> finalize my Shepherd write-up. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards >>>>> >>>>> Gyan >>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:13 AM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Gyan, >>>>>> >>>>>> thank you for your suggestion! >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find my answer inline with Sandy>. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sandy >>>>>> 原始邮件 >>>>>> *发件人:*GyanMishra >>>>>> *收件人:*张征00007940; >>>>>> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;bier-chairs@ietf.org; >>>>>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org; >>>>>> *日 期 :*2020年10月20日 12:08 >>>>>> *主 题 :**Re: Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07* >>>>>> Hi Sandy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you think it would be worthwhile to mention the reasons for collection >>>>>> >>>>>> maybe in the introduction. I think it would be helpful such as inter-as >>>>>> >>>>>> provisioning or any other reason but I really think that should be stated. >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand that according to RFC 7752 is for collection of IGP topology >>>>>> >>>>>> information of active or passive path instantiation for RSVP TE or SR-TE. >>>>>> Here we are not doing any traffic engineering steering although BIER >>>>>> behavior is similar to SR source routing. So here you have new BIER >>>>>> >>>>>> specific TLV code points being provisioned by taking the RFC 7752 prefix >>>>>> >>>>>> attribute TLV to create three new BIER specific TLVs, BIER information, >>>>>> BIER MPLS Encapsulation, BIER Ethernet Encapsulation. Since the BIER >>>>>> >>>>>> specifics have nothing to do with TE attributes prefix TLV you really could >>>>>> >>>>>> have chosen of the three, node attribute TLV, link attribute TLV or prefix >>>>>> attribute TLV. Was their any reason why you chose prefix TLV over the >>>>>> >>>>>> other two to populate the bier specifics. I noticed that the BFR prefix >>>>>> >>>>>> provisioning to each BFR is not in the any of the three new prefix TLVs >>>>>> >>>>>> provisioned. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sandy> As you found, the BFR prefix is sent as BGP prefix, because >>>>>> BIER >>>>>> >>>>>> info is used as sub-TLV or sub-sub-TLV of IGP protocols, the BGP-LS >>>>>> >>>>>> advertisement is the same with BIER. The reason can be added in >>>>>> introduction, >>>>>> >>>>>> but may not be many sentences, how to use it is depended on the >>>>>> >>>>>> network administrator. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All the BGP-LS TLV code points provisioned to date are IGP LSDB related >>>>>> >>>>>> topology information to rebuild the RSVP TEDs database or SR topology on a >>>>>> Northbound PCE for active or passive path instantiation or TE or SR-TE >>>>>> steered paths. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you give an example of an application that requires topology visibility >>>>>> >>>>>> that cannot be satisfied natively without having to export the topology to >>>>>> >>>>>> a controller. Is it maybe a ODL or Openflow or other 3rd party controller >>>>>> >>>>>> use for NMS functions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sandy> BGP-LS is used for topology collection, and the existed >>>>>> collection >>>>>> >>>>>> does not include BIER information, one of the usecase is the >>>>>> controller >>>>>> >>>>>> decide the BFERs for a specific multicast flow. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If it’s just data that is being gathered as this is BIER specific couldn’t >>>>>> >>>>>> you gather via NMS netconf / Yang data model for proactive monitoring of >>>>>> >>>>>> the BIER domain. If the controller is not taking action or not doing any >>>>>> >>>>>> provisioning and just passive monitoring then I think NMS functionality can >>>>>> >>>>>> be accomplished by other means other than BGP-LS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sandy> Yes, you are right. The information can also be got by NMS >>>>>> netconf >>>>>> >>>>>> or YANG data model. They provide different methods for network >>>>>> administrator. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Gyan >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:54 PM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Hi Gyan, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > thank you very much for your comments! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > As co-author of this draft, I'd like to answer your question. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > This BGP-LS extension is used for information collection in a BIER domain >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/> >>>>> >>>>> *Gyan Mishra* >>>>> >>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike >>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver >>>>> Spring, MD >>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> >>>> <http://www.verizon.com/> >>>> >>>> *Gyan Mishra* >>>> >>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike >>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver >>>> Spring, MD >>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> <http://www.verizon.com/> >>> >>> *Gyan Mishra* >>> >>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >>> >>> >>> >>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver >>> Spring, MD >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> <http://www.verizon.com/> >> >> *Gyan Mishra* >> >> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >> >> >> >> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver >> Spring, MD >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> >> -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > > > *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver > Spring, MD > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> > > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
- [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-l… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… chen.ran
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… chen.ran
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… chen.ran
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… chen.ran
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-b… chen.ran