Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling/

Support.
The document is ready.

Thanks.
Jorge

From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 11:00 PM
To: "Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Cc: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com>, Ijsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, "bier-chairs@ietf.org" <bier-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling/

The doc has been rev'd with the proposed changes. Let's restart a short WGLC - week. Please read and respond to this thread by Oct 4, 2019

Thanks,
Greg

 On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:40 PM Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com<mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>> wrote:
Inline

Regards

Hooman

-----Original Message-----
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com<mailto:stig@venaas.com>>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:29 PM
To: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com<mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>>
Cc: Ijsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com<mailto:ice@cisco.com>>; bier-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:bier-chairs@ietf.org>; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>>; Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net<mailto:prz@juniper.net>>; Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <mankamis@cisco.com<mailto:mankamis@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WG LC on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling/

Hi

Sorry for delay.

HB> thanks for the comments!

This looks good, except that in the diagram it says "Type = 6"

HB> agreed thank you!

but below it says TBD. It should say TBD in the diagram as well.
Just editorial, but I think it should say IPv4, IPv6, "PIM packet" and maybe BFR-ID?

HB> ok agreed, this is really base on the bier prefix so I will change the text.

Stig

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 8:15 AM Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com<mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Stig
>
> Could you please confirm if you are ok with below or you have any other input/comments... That way I can post a final version.
>
> Much appreciated!
>
> Regards
>
> Hooman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 3:07 PM
> To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com<mailto:stig@venaas.com>>; Ijsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com<mailto:ice@cisco.com>>
> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>>; Antoni Przygienda
> <prz@juniper.net<mailto:prz@juniper.net>>; Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <mankamis@cisco.com<mailto:mankamis@cisco.com>>
> Subject: RE: [Bier] WG LC on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling/
>
> Hi Stig et al
>
> Thanks for comments
>
> Just to close the loop I will add the following, please let me know if you are good with it...
>
>
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |F|E|  Type=tbd  |    Length     |  Addr Family  |  BIER info
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...
>
>    F bit:   The Transitive bit.  Specifies whether this attribute is
>       transitive or non-transitive.  MUST be set to zero.  This
>       attribute is ALWAYS non-transitive.
>
>    E bit:   End-of-Attributes bit.  Specifies whether this attribute is
>       the last.  Set to zero if there are more attributes.  Set to 1 if
>       this is the last attribute.
>
>    Type:   TBD assign by IANA
>
>    Length:   The length in octets of the attribute value.  MUST be set
>       to the length in octets of the BIER info +1 octet
>       to account for the Address Family field.
>        For Ipv4 AF Length = 7+1
>        For Ipv6 AF Length = 19+1
>
>    Addr Family:   The PIM Address Family of the receiver Pim packet as defined
>       in [RFC7761].
>
>    BIER Info: IBBR Prefix, SD, bfr-id
>
> Regards
>
> Hooman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com<mailto:stig@venaas.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 9:45 AM
> To: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com<mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>>
> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>>; BIER WG
> <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>; Antoni Przygienda <prz@juniper.net<mailto:prz@juniper.net>>; Mankamana Mishra
> (mankamis) <mankamis@cisco.com<mailto:mankamis@cisco.com>>
> Subject: Re: [Bier] WG LC on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling/
>
> Hi
>
> I have a comment on the attribute text in the draft.
>
> It says:
>    Attr_type=TBD (BIER IBBR info IPv4): lenght=6 ; value=IBBR Prefix
>    (ipv4), SD, bfr-id
>
>    Attr_type=TBD (BIER IBBR info IPv6): lenght=19 ; value=IBBR Prefix
>    (ipv6), SD, bfr-id
>
> Most importantly, for IPv4, the length should be 7! I also think
> though that it would be useful to have a diagram. Also if you look at
> other attributes defined
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml#p
> im-parameters-2 you will see that the same option is used for both
> IPv4 and IPv6. I would suggest doing a diagram and using AF similar to RFC 8059 section 5.1.
>
> Regards,
> Stig
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:53 AM Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com<mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Jeffery/Stig/Eric
> >
> > Thanks again for your feedbacks...
> >
> > Bringing the working group into the loop
> >
> > RFC 5384 was proposed to be used to relay the IBBR info to EBBR
> >
> > Two new Attr types was proposed for identifying IBBR IPv4 and IPv6 address family.
> >
> >    0                   1                   2                   3
> >     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >    | Addr Family   | Encoding Type | Rsrvd   |S|W|R|  Mask Len     |
> >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >    |               Source Address
> >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+.....
> >    |F|E| Attr_Type | Length        | Value
> >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+.....
> >
> > Encoding type = 1
> > F = 0
> > Attr_type= 7 (New IANA BIER IBBR info IPv4) Vlaue = IBBR Prefix, SD,
> > bfr-id Attr_type= 8 (New IANA BIER IBBR info IPv6) Vlaue = IBBR
> > Prefix, SD, bfr-id
> >
> > IBBR Prefix: this is IPv4 or IPv6 BFR-Prefix of the IBBR for the
> > specific subdomain as described in [RFC8279]
> > SD: This is a 8-bit field that encodes the Sub-Domain as described in [RFC8279].
> > BFR-ID: this is a 16-bit field which identifies the BFR uniquely
> > with in the subdomain as described in [RFC8279]
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Eric Rosen
> > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:32 AM
> > To: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com<mailto:hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>>;
> > Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>>
> > Cc: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com<mailto:stig@venaas.com>>; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>; Antoni
> > Przygienda <prz@juniper.net<mailto:prz@juniper.net>>
> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WG LC on
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-pim-signaling/
> >
> > On 11/18/2018 4:53 PM, Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote:
> > > Jeffery/Stig
> > >
> > > Going back to the comments in the IETF for an optional TLV to identify the IBBR in the PIM join.
> > >
> > > 1.    Jeffrey forwarded RFC 5384, I am not sure how the TLVs in this RFC will help to identify the IBBR in the PIM signaling packet?
> >
> > RFC 5384 is about how to add attributes to PIM Joins.  I think the suggestion is that a new Join attribute (identifying the IBBR) needs to be defined.
> >
> > > 2.    Thinking more about this, If the implementation on EBBR dictates that the PIM message needs to have an optional TLV that identifies the IBBR, why can't the EBBR add that TLV to the PIM signaling packet before it sends it to the PIM task. All the info are available in the BIER header and before the signaling packet is send to the PIM task on EBBR the EBBR can add this information as an optional TLV. I
> >
> > Stig is obviously concerned about an implementation in which (a) the ability to pass information about the packet from hardware to software is limited, and (b) the ability to modify the packet before passing it to the control plane processor is minimal or non-existent.  And if these abilities exist, it might involve difficult-to-incorporate microcode changes..  These issues aren't that mysterious.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BIER mailing list
> > BIER@ietf.org<mailto:BIER@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier