Re: [Bier] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dhanaraj-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-00.txt

I agree with Tony, reserving the 0-15 from non-MPLS seems wrong to me.

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Apr 2019, at 20:48, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com<mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

Ok, thanks for push back ;-) I re-read the thread ;and kind of see what you're aiming at but correct me if I got it wrong. Since MPLS labels [0-15] are special purpose you'd like to carve out the same for the non-MPLS case?

So then, yes, I'm agnostic to that (I don't see how you can use that for PHP, you have to use the correct BIFT-ID for the PHP hop and then after that there is no BIFT-ID but maybe I miss something) except I would not formulate that as anything along the lines of "synchronizing" the space, there is nothing to synchronize, MPLS lablels are MPLS lables, non-MPLS BIFT-ids are something else albeit they look bit-wise the same. Anything else is a non distributio medii fallacy ...

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:32 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi Tony,

The context is “Keeping PHP case aside” :-)

Jeffrey

Juniper Internal
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com<mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2019 2:07 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>>
Cc: Senthil Dhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com>>; Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>>; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dhanaraj-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-00.txt

Nope, it's not. Add a sub-TLV to signal the capacity rather than giving special meanings to values in flat addressing space ....

--- tony

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:41 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Hi Senthil,

Looks like that I did not reply to this email.

Since there is no real difference between an mpls label and an opaque 20-bit BIFT-ID (other than one uses mpls forwarding infrastructure and the other does not), I agree that reserve space [0-15] is a good idea to keep the two in sync.

Jeffrey

Juniper Internal
From: Senthil Dhanaraj <senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:39 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>>
Cc: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>>; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dhanaraj-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-00.txt

Hi Jeffrey,

I meant that "reserved special purpose BIFT-id" could also be used for cases like PHP.
This way, we may avoid having to add new sub-TLV's like "PHP sub-sub-TLV".

Keeping PHP case aside, In general, Do you think we should reserve a space [0 - 15] as special purpose BIFT-id's?

Thanks,
Senthil

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:29 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net<mailto:zzhang@juniper.net>> wrote:
For the specific case of PHP, it does not use a special BIFT-ID to signal PHP (especially when you consider the fact that we’re talking about “BIFT-ID”). The php draft says:

   A BIER incapable router, if acting as a multicast flow overlay
   router, MUST signal its BIER information as specified in [RFC8401<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc8401&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&m=N_OTgZiZr2c6GaNIafdyf5kQ8zK4jBPSgKonPyjdJBE&s=sOU2zHHHLHfCiNpA0iy1ILFQPIPfKVmyvr_Hf-IEtcA&e=>] or
   [I-D.ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions] or [I-D.ietf-bier-idr-
   extensions], with a PHP sub-sub-TLV included in the BIER sub-TLV
   attached to the BIER incapable router's BIER prefix to request BIER
   PHP from other BFRs.  The sub-sub-TLV's type is TBD, and the length
   is 0.

   With MPLS encapsulation, the BIER incapable multicast flow overlay
   router MAY omit the BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV, or MUST set
   the Label Range Base in BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV to
   Implicit Null Label [RFC3032<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc3032&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&m=N_OTgZiZr2c6GaNIafdyf5kQ8zK4jBPSgKonPyjdJBE&s=yTKr1Q5Qg2oczBEXNXpPmI1XxKzgirvheMi5wxlpdf0&e=>].

Jeffrey

From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Senthil Dhanaraj
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 1:02 AM
To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>>
Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dhanaraj-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-00.txt

Hi Xiejingrong,

RFC8296 do not reserve any BIFT-id's (for non-mpls networks) to be used for special purposes.

But yes, it might be a good idea to reserve a BIFT-id range to be used for special purposes in non-MPLS networks.
One use case i can think of is PHP (use special values like Implicit NULL, Explicit NULL label in MPLS) which could be applied to non-MPLS networks as well like BIER over Ethernet.

BIER'ers, kindly shoot your opinion !

Thanks,
Senthil

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 7:54 AM Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi  Senthil
I have one comment/question:
Section 1, is BIFT-id 1/2/3/4/5/6 been allowed in non-mpls case?

In MPLS encapsulation, value 0 to 15 is reserved and should not be allowed as BIER label I guess.

Thanks
Jingrong

From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Senthil Dhanaraj
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 10:04 PM
To: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Bier] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dhanaraj-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-00.txt

Hi Folks,

Renamed draft-dhanaraj-bier-isis-non-mpls-extensions to  draft-dhanaraj-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions

Major updates:
1) Added packet format details for OSPFv2 as well
2) Updated text to better explain the signalling of BIFT-id's
3) Renamed "non-mpls" to "ethernet" as this specific draft covers only "BIER over Ethernet".

Thanks,
Senthil
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
BIER@ietf.org<mailto:BIER@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bier&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&m=WIVOmBke2a8-y1DN7JQk7zsU0MufWRSN-h_5B5fM95o&s=L_UEgdJMLF3eo23S6S-52jNUL1dGj3NnKdrLJEDOJ1g&e=>
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
BIER@ietf.org<mailto:BIER@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier