Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling/
Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 20:55 UTC
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 786643A03ED for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 xVGbbMvGJA7D for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (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 C411F3A0303 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id p1so10647991pls.4 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aqAIjPIzbfKzYCY62egHA6UTgARcg2n6XAD5zZztyEg=; b=l/Q3TKWK3l1I5tqV1V+YnbTRRUqpbBWq/EMpwVLRrXeEVdh3rh+iGE1DbWUWeY2HZT 0K4YJW16YW0QjTREETFgy1pYLXTd9/cVzx/vIBLt9Wy1EvGeRaLvym7OU8qqpndJJwAv TdzMSPpXlClMKXM4tyBSZatkv+NrGU0ttWhGg2o6JYTF2InNpKOCHzGjXKEfGggmaZOh P4zqZkA8K3kOS3ihMi0QJIyLqfzsMduukAS7oV+G6Pc0Ux950+jYYC6GiHQtQDockPy2 LhVGre6xQ6PWFcuccBisfb83jZ50L0qYVpQhasXlSi6EWDsoGxwt9P6aj3I21huRwsoB ZWXQ==
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=aqAIjPIzbfKzYCY62egHA6UTgARcg2n6XAD5zZztyEg=; b=WFpJrG2RicRoWmStVtRhfTQoIVIApWXkodYizpa05CoZK1f0JqsjuEAfdf3UOaui3w ypZ2QveRN62I+7ADqQpQhuZ78T1Zy+ORQkY7VMrh77jPBckD+vS1g1DE8+QGos+BJ/JW WLq5OB0iUmGqU0rckKIthY0nGy8rGoHOHcm8MWsYduDezlXshpzzQU501RGL8vp+rjpn NyZXeHNl+SaYngaTQ40iQQs3SVStYWWeiWrwvJqiEsdXwk2pSxBpiz2QHlq37jvHf2n0 gJZO99/rOANGSMciW/s77T3QJLpjn7x1aouxJtsEh/D128BSYhvCTkvn1dSs59R/V5u8 GplA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530eP2ANEm+AgxfTBL2j/EJoGaVuMLkJS3E5VQyufmofMp5REvNS nEvNgbE97p0WN/fAHXtj8vHGgjYWYc2tCcr4QgWyog==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJynKhQyTiPnRrL/coUhevsWNiqu+/9gfLgFo1HhQyU77cWoD9pTN1V2LED1g0QfcHS7mc2wRGVEgvhHW2QlGqA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ead2:: with SMTP id p18mr8548372pld.339.1595969748999; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABFReBpUv871vDqmOwZ4q6xcN8GsHn_y5BpB6gJ8t2mnna37Kg@mail.gmail.com> <F5F12874-D276-4D13-A4FF-A45B8030029B@cisco.com> <CAHANBtL2VuEKo4xXFnifPhJQpN83mhgr7H5re6b_43oeEQ_+9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBtL2VuEKo4xXFnifPhJQpN83mhgr7H5re6b_43oeEQ_+9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:55:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHANBtJQiNHh2E6KuFqYx-arcCVexFq_Qj_DmcXH2=C=4bywKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com>
Cc: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, "Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, Ijsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>, "bier-chairs@ietf.org" <bier-chairs@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/4XFt-JoUSg_Cwd3HwVywkylNkrs>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling/
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 20:55:52 -0000
Hi It looks like most of the issues I found have been resolved now. But most importantly, the IANA Considerations still say that there are none. This needs to be fixed! I see a couple of places where it says PIM signaling message or PIM signaling packet. I think it should say PIM join/prune message, or PIM join/prune packet., Regards, Stig On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:51 AM Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote: > > Hi > > This is good work and I generally support the document. There are > however some issues that need to be addressed. I also think it > would be good to get this reviewed in the pim WG, perhaps you > can ask for reviews on the pim list. > > I mostly have editorial comments that are easy to address. But at > a high level I think some more text about pim is needed. > > PIM relies on hello messages to know what capabilities a router > has, e.g. whether it support Join attributes, whether it support > BIDIR etc. I think you need to point out what capabilities are > assumed to be present. Obviously it is assumed that Join > attributes are supported. It may also be good to point out that > there is no J/P suppression as the J/P is only sent to the target, > and not to other routers. Also point out that only J/P messages > are used, and that there is no assert processing. > > > Below are the editorial comments. Please also check the "nits" > tool. It complains about missing references, and it cannot find > the "Authors' Addresses" section. The heading is missing. > > Also Section 7 must be updated. There is an IANA action, but > it says there are none! > > The abstract is rather long. Suggest removing some of the text that > explains the general operation of BIER. > > Some of the references might need some work. In section 2 it > says "RFC 2119 [RFC2119]". Should it be just "[RFC2119]"? Also > the reference is missing. In 2.1 it says "[I-D. rfc8279]" which > also needs to be fixed. Most of the other references look fine. > In 3.1 there seems to be a reference to 8279 without brackets though. > > In 2.1, BFR definition. Missing space after ".". > > BFIR definition: It says "insert the BM into the packet", but I think it > might be better to say that it performs BIER encapsulation. The term BM > is not defined. It says "plain" instead of "plane". > > BFER defintion: Do we have to say that BFER is a BFR? In that case, we > should also say that BFIR is a BFR. It says "plain" instead of "plane". > > IBBR and EBBR, might it be good to include "signaling" in the name, like > Ingress Signaling BIER Router and Egress Signaling BIER Router? I want it > to be very clear that ingress and egress are not related to data. > > In "Figure 1" I think "bfir" and "bfer" should be upper case. > > In 3.1: > "weather" should be "whether". > "located on" should probably be "located in". > > In 3.1 there is this paragraph that I think need some changes. > > After discovering the EBBR and its BFR-ID (flooded via IGP BIER > extension), the IBBR will construct a PIM Join Attribute encoded as > > It says that BFR-ID is flooded via IGP BIER extension. That isn't > necessarily true, do we need to explain how the BFR-ID is discovered? > > TLVs into the Source Address field of the PIM Join Message as per > > Isn't it just one TLV? I think you can skip saying that it is a TLV > in the source address field. Just say that it includes a new PIM > Join Attribute in the Join/Prune message. Also note that we should > really say Join/Prune, not just Join. > > [RFC5384] and include it in PIM signaling message. Two new "BIER > > I think it is better to be clear and say PIM Join/Prune message. > > IBBR" attributes are define and explained in upcoming section. The > s/define/defined > > PIM Join Attribute is used on EBBR to obtain necessary bier > s/bier/BIER > information to build its multicast states. In addition the IBBR will > change the PIM signaling packet source IP address to its BIER prefix > address (standard PIM procedure). It will also keep the destination > address as the well known multicast IP address. It then will > construct the BIER header. The signaling packet, in this case the PIM > join/prune packet, is encapsulated in the BIER header and transported > through BIER domain to EBBR. > > The language at the end here makes it sound like the PIM J/P is being > forwarded and that the J/P is being modified. But J/P messages are sent > hop-by-hop. Each router originates a new J/P. For instance, a router > may receive a J/P for multiple sources. These sources may have different > RPF neighbors on the receiving router and hence be split into separate > join messages. This could happen on the IBBR as well. > > The lasts paragraph in section 3 says: > The IBBR will track all the PIM interfaces on the attached PIM domain > which are interested in a certain (S,G). It creates multicast states > for arriving (S,G)s from PIM domain, with incoming interface as BIER > "tunnel" interface and outgoing interface as the PIM domain > interface(s) on which PIM Join(s) were received on. > > The IBBR is a PIM router and what you are describing is standard PIM > behavior, so I think this is a bit redundant. It might be goot to > stress that OIFs are adding according to standard PIM behavior. The only > special here is the RPF interface. > > Section 3.1.4: > In heading Pim/PIM > bier/BIER > > It says "PIM Join Attribute [RFC5384] is used." I think it might be good > to say that "a new PIM Join Attribute is used". And then also this > sentence "The PIM Join Attribute format is as follow:" should perhaps be > The new PIM Join Attribute format is defined as follows:". > > s/Ipv4/IPv4 > s/Ipv6/IPv6 > > In the format I think it might be good to not just show "BIER info", but > show the formatting of prefix, SD and BFR-ID explicitly. Also, it should > state clearly that these are the prefix, SD and BFR-id of the IBBR. > > In 3.1.4.1 why not say PIM Join/Prune packet instead of PIM signaling? > > In 3.3.: > After receiving the BIER packet and determining this packet is a > signaling packet, EBBR will remove the BIER header from PIM packet. > The Received PIM join/prune Signaling packet is processed as if it > were received from neighbors on a virtual interface, (i.e. as if the > pim adjacency was presents, regardless of the fact there is no > adjacency) > Wouldn't the router remove the BIER header simply because the BFR-id > in the BIER header matches its own BFR-id? There are some grammar issues > and a missing period in this paragraph. > > In this paragraph: > With same token the EBBR creates a multicast state with incoming > interface as same interface that PIM join packet was forwarded and > outgoing interfaces of BIER tunnel to BFER identified with BFIR-id > and its corresponding Sub-Domain obtained from the BIER header or via > PIM Join Attributes added to the PIM signaling packet by the IBBR. > > I'm not sure what "With same token" means here. Also, it not should say > that PIM join packet was forwarded. I would say that state is created > according to the PIM specification, and just describe the BIER OIF state. > The specific OIF state may be implementation specific though. Perhaps this > is sufficiently described in the paragraph that comes right after? It is > also well described in 4.1. > > In section 5: s/LEAFs/leaves? Should it be EBBRs? > > In section 6: > s/vrf/VRF > "it is determine" should be "it is determined". > Replace "PIM signaling message" with "PIM Join/Prune message"? > > Section 8: > The 4601 reference should be to RFC 7761. > > Appendix A: > The header seems to not be formatted correctly. > "This section" should be "This appendix"? > > In A.1: "is consist" should be "consists". > > In Figure 2: s/bier/BIER > Also in the text in A.2.2. > > IN A.3.1 > s/Bier/BIER > s/bier/BIER > s/tlv/TLV > > Stig
- [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/… Antoni Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Purkayastha, Debashish
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Nabeel Cocker
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC onhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/d… zhang.zheng
- [Bier] 答复: WG LC onhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/d… chen.ran
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Eric Rosen
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Eric Rosen
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Nabeel Cocker
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Stig Venaas
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Nabeel Cocker
- Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/… Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)