[Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00
IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@braindump.be> Thu, 10 November 2022 07:35 UTC
Return-Path: <ice@braindump.be>
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 A6A4CC15257A; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 23:35:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mailprotect.be
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 uKeyJfu-zDdB; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 23:35:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out002.mailprotect.be (out002.mailprotect.be [83.217.72.86]) (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 83456C152575; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 23:34:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailprotect.be; s=mail; h=To:Cc:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:From:reply-to:sender:bcc:in-reply-to: references; bh=RI5UQooOGUY6nTuOJ2hLYfOil0o5TfiMCG6+r6U1z18=; b=rNasC3UFWHXaT3 pYvLcfQKG0VVhB5CwazfoLJliD+xG0/TFg09kRcrU8DATivYv0B2MtArn07HbfRVjAtSkvsif8fQ4 jCPR55tWRzuOSnadR/ktts/kEdSL2XQP7MBAdJ5JdEb8Gmep86DQFaz3dzEdcl6wTPUfNtqGAlvym I34ntRBW748aXomJ9gI0PgLybJ3004FPGhxv/hDgM2XpiL8vZLJeWhGLOeBi+pMwGGQPWeCYvYcvv WCgackjC+UI9TFfPKt4uwkVZO8vVb5BYfLsVEw8wfytPkI7sn3jWM8ocNd/FacdJPGSrxGoGACGas OmWrnhaKiI0g174NugxA==;
Received: from smtp-auth.mailprotect.be ([178.208.39.155]) by com-mpt-out002.mailprotect.be with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ice@braindump.be>) id 1ot25P-0008en-5E; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:34:55 +0100
Received: from smtpclient.apple (dhcp-9a2d.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.154.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-auth.mailprotect.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4393C0125; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:34:53 +0100 (CET)
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@braindump.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Message-Id: <E270142C-8850-435D-AC9D-7B1D761EF5AE@braindump.be>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 01:32:51 +0000
Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
To: draft-eckert-bier-rbs@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
X-Originating-IP: 178.208.39.155
X-SpamExperts-Domain: mailprotect.be
X-SpamExperts-Username: 178.208.39.128/27
Authentication-Results: mailprotect.be; auth=pass smtp.auth=178.208.39.128/27@mailprotect.be
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.29)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT90KNnKonABetxxt1uPRmjJPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5wn3IZCgf+l9O5WnVMSOExUwJMwnFzAcvMGsHe+hGNB5QY1 /HQ91jzVFnxnckswsWhPeeYKRMpJtEMmev0Hv1uys2sJXqifT3uwFyHcv/1agCTg127TqHZDxA/k ZB41Rh/17sxadddDOquHzUKfRLUg5ZuxPE4nrdt31pd1IZUzuLtWM0gXOYkOtS6wNaNBRHt5xBHk CMCjMposz65/e+f6sz9VtXrOJenZ5zYaF/sdP+70pheH5TNN6RiG9N0Jt+0ML5i3g2GFaGQnZ3Ko wlU8anvoc7s0eHtsyrH7f4vWs1KcgxQTqdSE3cxlP67ssuZxn2a3k66wqHQRkdHrnUf0cbxtUKyO MFAL2k2jwBOsHDGf7whRmXLGdyygEEORJZIo5ui9sFi7Ipt9fxY35HdsL4QFy0eB/isP83e9uHLE BeHTPI/rzJIRbhotX0RECi73tAkKkqOraDjBQ0V6Jl6cNXf0xLkfge9mzM1qtvMzGiYxT7p/s9HY sq8PpN/9QE7dZh03ExTqDquACpNsmDrlcntZzD+8euQ3PTJH+fGZGHMcN6qoXPjenLhIOF1oeRZi w/asA3gqiCsSahbDNh51Kr+qrgguqvokRYmE+oXujmNXU2DAp+QpWCkJP3mv+EUO4VWXDfBpByWd e7nT/lT4MzfVS2F5zx6Xv1wYD5pggF9L2zldRguLVknTBH19KmbWXGH5SDG2kyRsdcYPy9St+qJK V/NvwbV06JaLnkml7NEyvDkN3AfUBddcu9g0UhykBJTycjSXYBbCRRLP/dzFfEkqcNUukEZzD20g dE6OhOQJyPsBMRItmV2XMBZo/xvRvV1DAYDQzvjZDRqMBVvkc47ONVdjKjXvE2tqxE6RDhyrLEiV YnZBEe1WauMnlc/KATDDBZ7fFc0FDw0l2bg+/rVyvOTVreAmAaNpe76fU4XjPD5cu1DZPbPiUdvQ 5iKkASe0zzIoSVH5jzhBWWljqBsEh5wxUOD+GA7ZQVwcq03nFL4yr42TjbS14OCo2rmWn8fjrynD skL1KLEvQjvy
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@com-mpt-mgt001.mailprotect.be
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/Dv_GgC-ggtqA5c7FJPxzI6NpKwc>
Subject: [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00
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: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 07:35:07 -0000
Dear Authors, Here is some feedback on the RBS encoding. This is based on my understanding of the draft and discussion with Toerless today. 1. It seems that when a BIER router is parsing the RecursiveUnit, the length of the BitString is derived from the length of the BIFT Table on the router processing the packet. To me that seems very tricky as the length of the BIFT table might change when interfaces/adjacencies get added and removed. There might always be transient cases where the length of the BitString in the packet might be different from the router’s BIFT Table. If that happens, the complete parsing of the RBS packet goes to sh*t. It would be good to somehow add the length of the BitString inside the RBS header to prevent these cases from happening and be more defensive. 2. The BIFT table has a Recursive flag to indicate if a BIER node has downstream receivers. This is also required to correctly parse the RBS header. In my mind this should not be a property of the BIFT table. A bier node might have nodes connected to it, but that doesn’t mean they are part of the tree. The recursive flag should be part of the encoded tree inside the RBS header. Thx, Ice.
- [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00 IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00 IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00 IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00 IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] Feedback on draft-eckert-bier-rbs-00 IJsbrand Wijnands