Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07

chen.ran@zte.com.cn Tue, 24 November 2020 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
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 605A83A0656; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:19:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.017
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 EefLxikjDN9a; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E69183A064E; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:19:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.215]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id E4346A317726E5C1EF1A; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:19:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id B574957601E1428FA957; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:19:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0AO1JW5Z089559; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:19:32 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:19:32 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 09:19:32 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95fbc5fa4730678d6
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202011240919321082786@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3saHnSoP42Cf28QwXwSUtZ_Y2Pec+EGk-4JTHEMs17mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: CABNhwV0Lj3iZyD=bux6dyZeZk6Y-y31Oa0PdXUpYFOLo=ZM7Xw@mail.gmail.com, 202011231744258912495@zte.com.cn, CABNhwV3saHnSoP42Cf28QwXwSUtZ_Y2Pec+EGk-4JTHEMs17mA@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
To: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: <bier@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org>, <bier-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 0AO1JW5Z089559
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/ADoYyISPIv00cSKjLRe6Skl7IOI>
Subject: Re: [Bier] =?utf-8?q?Shepherd=E2=80=99s_review_of_draft-ietf-bier-bg?= =?utf-8?q?p-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: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 01:19:40 -0000

Hi Gyan,


Thanks for reviewing and updating the Shepherd write-up.






Best Regards,


Ran



















原始邮件



发件人:GyanMishra
收件人: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11月24日 04:15
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 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. 


The main update contents are as follows: 


remove RFC 6952 & 3631 &4272.


remove RFC 4271 to informative references 


add  RFC 5440 & 5376 to informative references  and add 4655 to normative references.


we have just  requested  BIER-related BGP LS IANA codepoints,If there is further information synced to you.


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 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/. 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










-- 













Gyan Mishra


Network Solutions Architect 


M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike 
Silver Spring, MD























-- 













Gyan Mishra


Network Solutions Architect 


M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike 
Silver Spring, MD













-- 













Gyan Mishra


Network Solutions Architect 


M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike 
Silver Spring, MD













-- 













Gyan Mishra


Network Solutions Architect 


M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike 
Silver Spring, MD























-- 













Gyan Mishra


Network Solutions Architect 


M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike 
Silver Spring, MD























-- 













Gyan Mishra


Network Solutions Architect 


M 301 502-1347
13101 Columbia Pike 
Silver Spring, MD