IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> Fri, 09 October 2015 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ice@cisco.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 565A71B4DDE for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 G6oH1y--iPyW for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A1101B4DDC for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=494; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444429573; x=1445639173; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vPD8PNoxxbjnfEs/VDUWO1b7iww1EHauUMvO3pEMAKg=; b=MUQuTkyllL2fj3xkNM+Rsv37+zWnB4z2/CqbtLF9Wf0//I2V62EsnTvD eA2Xmu3EBCcIlLl7ZPkcsEw/lDtiUpQdL7k3Mljxo1C9Bk+2tEuSE2ahu 6t7GaBLzA6dl3PaF0lX9xlkg7NKe+HMKMNoSFmRjJ/IjSp5zoAzD9bTsr A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BJAgBZPhhW/4sNJK1egyaqRAEBAQEBAQUBgQ2TSgENgVqDE4IKfwKBSTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCcBAQMBOj8FCwtGVwaIOQjEGwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReGLIJXgm6EWjMHgxqBFAEEjgOID40aiROSbB8BAUKEIh6IHQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,660,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="34311952"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2015 22:26:12 +0000
Received: from [10.154.212.207] ([10.154.212.207]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t99MQAAr015385 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Oct 2015 22:26:11 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <56183A6B.30209@nexenta.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:26:10 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <474003DB-6651-4F4F-9DC8-2B0CF9A29A9A@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>
To: Caitlin Bestler <caitlin.bestler@nexenta.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/fr5JehZDRzIjxp_g3cUZkC45hpw>
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 22:26:14 -0000

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 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email