IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-eckert-bier-te-arch-01

Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler@nexenta.com> Fri, 09 October 2015 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <caitlin.bestler@nexenta.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CDB1B4DF3 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 4JpvIdwNBwly for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com [209.85.220.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 159A21B4DF1 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:44:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so98576521pac.0 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+gFM/sBxMEHogeI4MuZf7QEYL3KcXgpX65RZ/Wxmc78=; b=GhDP1CNuJxLSzqLenGh2btmwSS5dG8HNHt30plOIOoyHNKAwCGObY/zNpuNcjvx0aj boKmMbFy441W6oQbsQMzgsD4tl2SDh3sYcKjHw4Lp/yD2cB7T4e4jhMnCWlyCADLHD98 6S6sV4WV/5NePJ30Bp87NcekE4X1iUyEJAcJX2Lz9u3lwWU8DNPoISLAew2A5wppjuVg HgTJ1b5HigRE5ezbwarQvsKwgVjpi4CXhJv4nPIY8kOMUM6Lrhbu7BVvPA7do1yJxfF5 1lmC6+du8IaoiCsusKCRYoy62irkOqKIhtcxWa2gOF3yydCUxTpbrb9vveafnq0kEpHN IcAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkggKwXZAJfmpTm1f1cLTVLso5n6ygQFlb8tktvH9dBWiyHeNCXl8+G/pKqisC6h2eTpeUQ
X-Received: by 10.68.93.194 with SMTP id cw2mr18193087pbb.36.1444430680638; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Macintosh.local (67-207-110-172.static.wiline.com. [67.207.110.172]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id rb8sm4414792pbb.63.2015.10.09.15.44.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
References: <55DF5BAD.9060003@juniper.net> <20151007221035.GA26709@cisco.com> <20151009022602.GA32419@cisco.com> <5617EA57.4040909@nexenta.com> <2E4BB27CAB87BF43B4207C0E55860F180EAE0D74@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <56181A58.4070500@nexenta.com> <66F3BDC8-D724-4A07-B95B-8A61129767E9@cisco.com> <56183A6B.30209@nexenta.com> <474003DB-6651-4F4F-9DC8-2B0CF9A29A9A@cisco.com>
From: Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler@nexenta.com>
Message-ID: <56184355.7040504@nexenta.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:44:37 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <474003DB-6651-4F4F-9DC8-2B0CF9A29A9A@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/cpRCAleV0WpcJ2uEhD_peTWcOP8>
Cc: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, Antoni Przygienda <antoni.przygienda@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-eckert-bier-te-arch-01
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 22:44:46 -0000


On 10/9/15 3:26 PM, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:
> Caitlin,
>
>> If there a N BFR-IDs total in the BIER domain, why is it more expensive to break them into 2x sub-domains as opposed
>> to X sub-domains that are each twice as large?
> Not sure what you mean here..
If there are 5000 BFRs you need 5000 rules, no matter how many 
sub-domains you divide them over.

>> If there are 2x routing underlays then clearly things would be more expensive, but what expense is there in having
>> an additional sub-domain rather than an additional SI slice?
> A SI is as expensive as a sub-domain, there is no difference.
>
> Thx,
>
> Ice.
Exactly.

If there is no real difference then why have both concepts in the interface?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email