Re: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-wijnandsxu-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-01

[IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]>]

Eric,

> What you're showing below is not a multi-vendor interoperability issue, it's a provisioning issue.    The BIFT-id is only one of 

I agree its provisioning issue, but that does not mean there is no multi-vendor angle here. Every vendor that supports “bift-id auto” needs to encode it the same way.

> several parameters that need to be provisioned, and if the provisioning system cannot manage the BIFT-ids, it's hard to see how it can
>  manage the provisioning of the BFR-prefixes and BSLs.   To me, this seems a minor problem when compared to the possibility of an implementation that only works when the BIFT-id is constructed according to the algorithm of this draft.

On the other hand, there is less risk of mis-configuration because its done through an algorithm :-).

Thx,

Ice.

> 
> 
> On 2/27/2018 12:59 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:
>> Eric,
>> 
>> Maybe a configuration example helps:
>> 
>> Consider the below configuration:
>> 
>> router bier
>>  encapsulation non-mpls bsl 256
>>   sub-domain 1
>>    source loopback 0
>>    bift-id auto
>>   !
>>  !
>> !
>> 
>> I would think that such configuration is the minimum required on every BIER router (unless there are default that don’t need to be required) independent of the vendor.
>> 
>> Based on the above we can generate a BIFT-id following the draft proposal. Two different vendors having BIER configured will be interoperable because they generate the same BIFT-id, without having to configure it.
>> 
>> It is also possible to configure:
>> 
>> router bier
>>  encapsulation non-mpls bsl 256
>>   sub-domain 1
>>    source loopback 0
>>    bift-id 10000
>>   !
>>  !
>> !
>> 
>> Now the operator needs to manage value ‘10000’ and make sure its configure on every router the same.
>> 
>> Thx,
>> 
>> Ice.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 27 Feb 2018, at 18:46, Eric C Rosen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2/27/2018 12:25 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:
>>>> If we want to be interoperable among different vendors, I think it is good to have this documented.
>>> This is the sort of statement that really worries me.  What is the interoperability issue?  As long as a vendor allows the assignment of BIFT-ids, interoperability should be possible without the need for any particular suggested way of constructing the BIFT-ids.
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure we can say both that the draft is informational, and that it is needed for multi-vendor interoperability.
>>> 
>