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

Hi Ran

Thank you

Will look out for the update.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 4:52 AM <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
> Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we will update it as soon
> as possible.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ran
>
>
> 原始邮件
> *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
>>
>>
>> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
>

-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD