Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 13 February 2018 09:03 UTC
Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6110512E897; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 01:03:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 OrYcOi8-_Mj2; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 01:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B3B8124BE8; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 01:03:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=51438; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518512601; x=1519722201; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V6lwoGim/32QYb86VP3OSPdZvN/9tVPNOYKx9coxw0o=; b=VpZpMy43w+0+lEIvU+zbcTd+O13ObiuEOe9FYcZsC644w50NjFzEiXFi r/af6QXXi2fcq3NUFFB5AndvL+LCA1fFhjM00No1BxlPJokC0/uvBAFyC eo6ZHvxKjsv1CxP3Aq/2ISqlz1uDJEeSV5DzJj7fkjOGDHgX6p+g5D8bY s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,506,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="1990208"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Feb 2018 09:03:19 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.58] (ams-ppsenak-nitro9.cisco.com [10.60.140.58]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1D93IWB023021; Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:03:18 GMT
Message-ID: <5A82A9D8.7050606@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:03:20 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
CC: "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <ice@cisco.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
References: <20170721062741.GA3215@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CA+wi2hNOf=UZja29OVDGWJMvULoyJP7Uj_OnZYVakNiX0-59Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rcZnZmbfU3AnLgfCJmOz-dJ0uv8VUZE+BQ9Qq3B=7DgZg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hNrQV+gyQS_ts-38w2OWYOkTXUy-Q3b0FAGKaztE8D+QQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABFReBoWZeQxnOCERr9EVykE5dY8p04KQT=JsDqk2eN2Q9p_2g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hPtxa_Z7VS6Hnj5Y4iQG3RUx7GP6exkf9o4ZcQr2eU_ig@mail.gmail.com> <5A81ABAC.107@cisco.com> <69EEC1F9-3077-4260-BB7A-66F0AEB3357D@cisco.com> <CA+wi2hO0ZPS=3aNY_Et1ChRhzQVJvr1dPiB-ugiC6iGDNpfyfA@mail.gmail.com> <DC7DFF2A-C986-4EA3-A701-6C80C867560B@cisco.com> <CDCE115D-C3AD-47DA-9993-6AC0BD88ED2D@cisco.com> <771dbad8841b42ac8ea3012dc73ef33b@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CC1CC82E-E134-4931-9735-07A0D0E64997@cisco.com> <e1ce91bb9d28485fbaad63252e1e0e3c@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <E35F158F-2F97-47FD-8272-497B68ABDD1B@cisco.com> <07df09dda97e4dad9450a4a9799ae8c7@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CA+wi2hNK1WRN89q0uUOF4FLkDHoBBtUZhLxqrceY-q_zu7=8zg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hNK1WRN89q0uUOF4FLkDHoBBtUZhLxqrceY-q_zu7=8zg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/rGoOKU2_sUhQVb9UJvMl9MjAFSs>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:03:25 -0000
Hi Folks, can we add an errata to RFC 8279, instead of adding the text to both IGP drafts that does not really belong there. thanks, Peter On 13/02/18 08:16 , Tony Przygienda wrote: > +1 what Les says as my understanding of the problem we're tackling here ... > > --- tony > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Ice –____ > > __ __ > > MY understanding is that – in the future – there may be additional > encaps defined for BIER. When that happens, a given BFR may support > multiple encaps. In such a case, it is OK if other BFRs supporting > the same <MT,SD> only support one of the set of encaps – so long as > we have one encap in common we can successfully forward. I believe > that is the case the text change is trying to address – not encap vs > no encap. The original text would have required identical sets of > encaps to be supported by all BFRs for a give <MT,SD> - which is > unnecessarily restrictive.____ > > __ __ > > Make sense?____ > > __ __ > > Les____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > *From:*IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) > *Sent:* Monday, February 12, 2018 1:50 PM > > > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com > <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> > *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>; > bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <ppsenak@cisco.com <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>; isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list <isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>> > *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04____ > > __ __ > > Les,____ > > __ __ > > (If MPLS encapsulation (Section 2.1 of [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS]) is > being used, this means that every BFR that is advertising > a label > for sub-domain S is advertising a label for the > combination of > sub-domain S and Disposition BitStringLength L.)____ > > __ __ > > It says, if MPLS encapsulation is used, there is a Label for the > {SD, BSL}. So, if there is non-MPLS (ether) only, there will not be > a Label and the compatibility check will fail. Is that not the same > a router that does not support MPLS BIER, and treated as a non-BIER > router?____ > > __ __ > > [Les:] I don’t see how this text can be used to mean “multiple > encap types can be supported on the same BFR for a given <MT,SD>”. > ???____ > > __ __ > > Are these not like ships in the night? Like an Prefix can be > reachable over MPLS and IP on the same interface? I do assume you > want to stay with the encapsulation that you where provisioned in > and not move from MPLS into non-MPLS. Why do you need to say you can > support both?____ > > __ __ > > Thx,____ > > __ __ > > Ice.____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > On 12 Feb 2018, at 22:16, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Ice - > > From: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:58 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com > <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>; > bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <ppsenak@cisco.com <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>; isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list <isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > Les, > > > Perhaps the thread is too long and you have gotten confused. J > > Maybe :-), but... > > > The point being discussed now is support for multiple > encapsulation types (BSL conversion was mentioned in the thread > – but it is NOT the subject being discussed at the moment). > > I got that, it was removed after a long debate sometime back. > > > > In latest IS-IS BIER draft we changed: > > > All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs > MUST advertise the > > same encapsulation for a given <MT,SD>. A router > discovering > > encapsulation advertised that is different from its > own MUST report a > > misconfiguration of a specific <MT,SD>. All received > BIER > > advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, > SD> pair MUST be > > ignored. > > > > " > > > > to > > > > " > > > > Multiple encapsulations MAY be advertised/supported > for a given > > <MT,SD>. Clearly, however, there MUST be at least > one encapsulation > > type in common in order for a BIER encapsulated > packet to be > > successfully forwarded between two BFRs. > > > > Point has been made that this really belongs in the architecture > RFC, but since it isn’t there it may make sense for the IGP > drafts to mention it. > > Below is taken from "6.10.1. BitStringLength Compatibility > Check” RFC 8279, does this not cover it? > > **** > The combination of sub-domain S and Imposition BitStringLength L > passes the BitStringLength Compatibility Check if and only > if the > following condition holds: > > Every BFR that has advertised its membership in > sub-domain S has > also advertised that it is using Disposition > BitStringLength L > (and possibly other BitStringLengths as well) in that > sub-domain. > (If MPLS encapsulation (Section 2.1 of [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS]) is > being used, this means that every BFR that is advertising > a label > for sub-domain S is advertising a label for the > combination of > sub-domain S and Disposition BitStringLength L.) > > If a BFIR has been provisioned to use a particular Imposition > BitStringLength and a particular sub-domain for some set of > packets, > and if that combination of Imposition BitStringLength and > sub-domain > does not pass the BitStringLength Compatibility Check, the BFIR > SHOULD log this fact as an error. > **** > > [Les:] I don’t see how this text can be used to mean “multiple > encap types can be supported on the same BFR for a given <MT,SD>”. > ??? > > Les > > > Thx, > > Ice. > > > > In the case of IS-IS, because earlier versions of the draft had > an explicit statement which we now consider too limiting, it > made sense to make an explicit statement of the more flexible > behavior. > > In the case of OSPF, the overly restrictive text was never > present, so it is more debatable as to whether the clarifying > statement is needed – but doing so keeps the drafts in sync. > > Still, the “right solution” would be to have the statement in > RFC 8279 – but a bit late for that. > > Les > > > From: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:05 PM > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> > Cc: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com > <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>; bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org>; isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list <isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <ppsenak@cisco.com <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > Folks, > > I would say its wrong to try and fix the BIER architecture by > adding this into the IGP drafts. The IGP is a pass-through for > the BIER information, and adding this text seems to imply that > the IGP now needs to become BIER aware in order to detect and > trigger notifications of encapsulation incompatibilities. > > The BIER architecture RFC 8279 has section 6.10 "Use of > Different BitStringLengths within a Domain”, what is missing in > that section that would justify the IGP to become aware of > BitStringLength differences? IMO everything is covered. > > Thx, > > Ice. > > > On 12 Feb 2018, at 19:33, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com > <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Hi Tony, > I agree that since architecture has been published, it would not > hurt to add the 5.2 text to the IGP documents. > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com > <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>> > Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:13 PM > To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> > Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppsenak@cisco.com > <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>, "bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org>" <bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>>, > "isis-wg@ietf.org list <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org%20list>" > <isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > Peter, Acee, agree that this was missed in architecture and we > should have talked about multiple encaps on a link there (just > like we mentioned the BSL conversion). Alas, it was theoretical > then and we missed. It was just a suggestion here to put it into > IGP draft as we did in ISIS. I'm fine whichever way you guys > feel it's better and a clarification draft can be always > published later after more experience in the field albeit it > seems that the issue is straight fwd' for most old hands, it's a > link local decision so just use any matching encaps to transfer, > however the computation has to agree to prevent blackholes ... > > Otherwise went through the important sections on -11 and looks > good to me, no further comments. Thanks for the work > > --- tony > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) > <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>> wrote: > With respect to the text in section 5.2, I agree with Peter. > > Thanks > Acee > > On 2/12/18, 9:59 AM, "BIER on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" > <bier-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ppsenak@cisco.com > <mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org%20on%20behalf%20of%C2%A0ppsenak@cisco.com>> > wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > OSPF does not have the original text, so it does not need > the new one. > > IMHO, the text in section 5 of ISIS BIER draft suits better > to the BIER > architecture draft than to the IGP extension draft. > > thanks, > Peter > > > On 09/02/18 20:17 , Tony Przygienda wrote: > > Sure ;-) let me ping Peter @ the bottom then ... I don't > think any of > > the stuff applies to OSPF (was ISIS nits) except we can > consider an > > encaps paragraph. We basically suggest both to replace in > ISIS the > > encaps section like this > > > > before: > > > > " > > All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs > MUST advertise the > > same encapsulation for a given <MT,SD>. A router > discovering > > encapsulation advertised that is different from its > own MUST report a > > misconfiguration of a specific <MT,SD>. All received > BIER > > advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, > SD> pair MUST be > > ignored. > > > > " > > > > now > > > > " > > > > Multiple encapsulations MAY be advertised/supported > for a given > > <MT,SD>. Clearly, however, there MUST be at least > one encapsulation > > type in common in order for a BIER encapsulated > packet to be > > successfully forwarded between two BFRs. > > > > " > > > > I do think that OSPF would benefit from adding this > section to clarify > > the issue which is not theoretical now that we have Ethernet. > > > > > > So Peter, any ETA on outstanding OSPF nits now that we're > tying up the > > IETF LC? > > > > thanks > > > > --- tony > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Greg Shepherd > <gjshep@gmail.com > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > No I didn't. Why would I? These are the changes you > and Les worked > > out. I assumed you'd share them as needed. If for > some reason you're > > uncomfortable engaging with the OSPF draft thread and > authors with > > your proposed changes, let me know and I'll broker > the conversation. > > > > Greg > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Tony Przygienda > > <tonysietf@gmail.com <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com > <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > > Les has the diff, I'd expect him to publish any > minute to the > > list ... The encaps was a real defect, the rest > is just > > tightening down the language/spec where it was > too loose/too > > strict. > > > > OSPF still needs update with conversion TLV > removed, same > > paragraph on encaps could be useful. I hope Greg > pinged Peter ... > > > > thanks > > > > tony > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Alia Atlas > <akatlas@gmail.com > <mailto:akatlas@gmail.com%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda > > <tonysietf@gmail.com > <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com > <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > > Went last nits with Les, we found one > issue (encaps > > section was wrong, need to look @ OSPF as > well) and > > basically tightened language in few places. > > > > > > K - please get that out with the details of > changes to the > > list. I did my AD review back in Oct and > looked at the > > differences before issuing > > IETF Last Call. > > > > I look forward to reviewing the minor changes. > > > > Regards, > > Alia > > > > tony > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Greg Shepherd > > <gjshep@gmail.com > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > Thanks Les. > > > > Any other feedback? Looks like the > concerns have > > been addressed. Speak now. > > > > Cheers, > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Les > Ginsberg > > (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com > <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> wrote: > > > > Greg –____ > > > > __ __ > > > > This thread is outdated.____ > > > > In V6 of the draft we removed the > restriction to > > limit IS-IS BIER support to area > boundaries – so > > Toerless’s comment (and my > proposed text) are no > > longer relevant.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Specifically:____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Section 4.1:____ > > > > __ __ > > > > “At present, IS-IS support for a > given BIER > > domain/sub-domain is ____ > > > > limited to a > single area - > > or to the IS-IS L2 sub-domain.”____ > > > > __ __ > > > > The above text was removed.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Section 4.2____ > > > > __ __ > > > > o BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be > included when a > > prefix reachability____ > > > > advertisement is leaked > between levels.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Was changed to____ > > > > __ __ > > > > o BIER sub-TLVs MUST be included > when a prefix > > reachability____ > > > > advertisement is leaked > between levels.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > This aligns IS-IS and OSPF drafts > in this > > regard.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Les____ > > > > __ __ > > > > *From:*Greg Shepherd > [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com > > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com> > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com%0b%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%3e%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%3cmailto:gjshep@gmail.com%3e>] > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, > 2018 2:23 AM > > *To:* Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>> > > *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > <ginsberg@cisco.com > <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>; Tony Przygienda > > <tonysietf@gmail.com > <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>; Hannes Gredler > > (hannes@gredler.at > <mailto:hannes@gredler.at> <mailto:hannes@gredler.at > <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>>) > > <hannes@gredler.at > <mailto:hannes@gredler.at > <mailto:hannes@gredler.at%20%3cmailto:hannes@gredler.at>>>; > > bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org> <mailto:bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org>>; > > isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>> list > > <isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org%20%3cmailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>>; > > Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org > <mailto:chopps@chopps.org%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:chopps@chopps.org>> > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC: > > > draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Have these changes been reflected > in the draft? > > We're in WGLC but this discussion > needs to come > > to a conclusion so we can > progress. ____ > > > > __ __ > > > > Greg____ > > > > __ __ > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:52 PM, > Toerless > > Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de%20%3cmailto:tte@cs.fau.de>>> > > wrote:____ > > > > Thanks, Less, that would be > lovely! > > > > I didn't check the OSPF > draft, if its > > similar state, explanatory > text wold equally > > be appreciated.____ > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at > 11:28:08PM +0000, > > Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > > Toerless - > > > > > > I am thinking to add a > statement in > > Section 4.1 - something like: > > > > > > "At present, IS-IS support > for a given > > BIER domain/sub-domain is > limited to a > > single area - or to the IS-IS > L2 sub-domain." > > > > > > If you believe this would > be helpful I > > will spin a new version > (subject to > > review/agreement from my > co-authors). > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Toerless Eckert > > [mailto:tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de> > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de%20%3cmailto:tte@cs.fau.de%3e>] > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 22, > 2017 6:34 AM > > > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > > > Cc: Tony Przygienda; > Hannes Gredler > > (hannes@gredler.at > <mailto:hannes@gredler.at> > > <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>); > Greg Shepherd; > > > > bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org> <mailto:bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org>>; > > isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>> > > list; Christian Hopps > > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: > > > draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > > > > > > > Thanks Les > > > > > > > > When searching various > terms in the doc > > to figure out what happens i > am not > > > > sure why i missed this one. > > > > > > > > But: IMHO, RFCs can not > only be the > > minimum number of words to get a > > > > running implementation. > It also needs > > to specify what this > implementation > > > > intends to achieve. > Otherwise its not > > possible to do a useful review: > > > > The reviewer can to > verify whether the > > spec will achieve what it > claims to > > > > achieve is there no > definitionn of what > > it claims to achieve. > > > > > > > > If i understand ISIS > correctly, my > > reverse engineering of the > intent is: > > > > > > > > - BIER TLVs stay within > single ISIS > > areas. BFIR and BFER must > therefore be > > > > in the same ISIS area: > There is no > > inter-area BIER traffic possible > > > > with this > specification. This is also > > true for ISIS area 0. > > > > > > > > - The same BIER > sub-domain identifiers > > can be re-used > > > > across different ISIS > areas without > > any current impact. If these > BFR-IDs > > > > are non-overlapping, > then this would > > allow in the future to create > a single > > > > cross ISIS area BIER > sub-domain by > > leaking TLVs for such a BIER > sub-domain > > > > across ISIS levels. > Leakage is > > outside the scope of this > specificication. > > > > > > > > I actually even would > like to do the > > following: > > > > > > > > - If BIER sub-domains > are made to span > > multiple ISIS areas and BFR-ids > > > > assignemtns > > > > are made such that all > BFR-ids with > > the same SI are in the same > ISIS ara, > > > > then it should be in > the future > > reasonably easy to create > inter-area BIER > > > > not by leaking of the > BIER TLV but by > > having BFIR MPLS unicastBIER > packets > > > > for different SIs to > an appropriate > > L2L1 BFIR that is part of the > destination > > > > area/SI. > > > > (if you would use SI > number that are > > the same as ISIS area numbers > then > > > > you could probably do > this without > > any new signaling. Not quite > sure if > > > > you can today easily > find L1L2 > > border router for another > area via existing > > > > TLVs). > > > > > > > > Alas, this idea will > probably be > > killed because of the BIER > architecture > > > > intent not to engineer > SI assignments > > in geographical fashions to > > > > minimize traffic > duplication in the > > presence of multiple SIs. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Toerless > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at > 06:03:53AM > > +0000, Les Ginsberg > (ginsberg) wrote: > > > > > Tony/Toerless ??? > > > > > > > > > > There is an explicit > statement as to > > scope: > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > Section 4.2 > > > > > ??? > > > > > o BIER sub-TLVs > MUST NOT be > > included when a prefix > reachability > > > > > advertisement is > leaked between > > levels. > > > > > <end snip> > > > > > > > > > > Tony seems to have > forgotten that we > > had a discussion about how BIER > > > > might be supported > across areas and the > > conclusion was we did not know > > > > how to do that yet. > > > > > (Sorry Tony) > > > > > > > > > > Note this is > ???consistent??? with > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier- > <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-> > > > <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier- > <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier->> > > > > > ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt Section > > > 2.5<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf- > <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf- > <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf->> > > > > > > > bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt%20Section%202.5> > > - which limits the > > > > flooding scope of BIER > information to a > > single area unless it can be > validated > > > > that the best path to > the prefix with > > BIER info can be validated to > be to a > > > > router which itself > advertised the BIER > > info. This is not something > IS-IS can do > > > > since a single IS-IS > instance only > > supports one area and > therefore does not > > > > have the Level-1 > advertisements of the > > originating router when that > router is > > > > in another area. > > > > > > > > > > A few more responses > inline. > > > > > > > > > > From: BIER > > [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org > > > <mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org> > <mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org%0b%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%3e%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%3cmailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org%3e>] > On Behalf Of > > Tony Przygienda > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 21, > 2017 5:17 AM > > > > > To: Toerless Eckert > > > > > Cc: Hannes Gredler > (hannes@gredler.at <mailto:hannes@gredler.at> > > <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>); > Greg Shepherd; > > bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org> <mailto:bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org>>; > > > > > isis-wg@ietf.org > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> > > <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> > list; Christian Hopps > > > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: > > > draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > > > > > > > > > Terminology is a bit > nits IMO since > > the doc is reading clear > enough for > > > > someone who read BIER & > ISIS. I can > > reread it or Les can comment > whether > > > > we should tighten > glossary ... > > > > > > > > > > With the scope I > agree, that got lost > > and the doc should be > possibly rev'ed > > > > before closing LC. Yes, > we flood AD > > wide was the agreement but > something > > > > mentioning that this > could change in > > the future is good so we are > forced to > > > > give it some thought how > that would > > transition ... > > > > > > > > > > Thinking further > though, in ISIS we > > have a clean document really. > The BIER > > > > sub-TLVs go into well > defined TLVs in > > terms of flooding scope. > Normal L1-L2 > > > > redistribution can be > used to get the > > info to all needed places > AFAIS. So > > > > maybe nothing needs to > be written. I > > wait for Les to chime in. > > > > > > > > > > OSPF I would have to > look @ scopes > > again & think whether we need to > > > > write something or maybe > Peter can > > comment ... > > > > > > > > > > --- tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 > at 8:27 AM, > > Toerless Eckert > > > > <tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de><mailto:tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>>> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, past the two > weeks, but > > hopefully benign textual > comments: > > > > > > > > > > We tried to find an > explicit > > statement about the scope of > BIER TLVs - eg: > > > > > are they meant to stay > within an > > area, have some > redistribution across > > > > > areas/levels or not. > > > > > > > > > > Tony said WG agreement > was to have > > these TLV be flooded across the > > > > > whole ISIS domain for > now (this > > draft). So an explicit > statement to that > > > > effect would > > > > > be great (All BIER > sub-domains TLVs > > are flooded across all ISIS > areas/levels, > > > > so they span the whole > ISIS domain). > > > > > > > > > > Also, if future work > may/should could > > improve on that maybe some > > > > > sentence about that (i > guess one > > could just have ISIS > intra-area BIER sub- > > > > domains ?). > > > > > > > > > > Also: Do a check about > possible > > ambiguity of any generic > terms like > > > > sub-domain, level, area, > topology so > > that reader that don't know the > > > > terminology ofall > protocols (ISIS, > > BIER) by heart can easily > know which > > > > protocol is referred to. > > > > > > > > > > [Les:] There is no > mention of > > ???level??? in the document. > > > > > The use of > ???sub-domain??? is > > clearly always associated > with ???BIER???. > > > > > ???topology??? is > always used as an > > RFC 5120 topology ??? therefore > > > > clearly an IS-IS topology. > > > > > There is only one use > of the term > > ???area??? (in Section 5.1). > That text > > > > might deserve a bit of > clarification > > given this might be either a > Level 1 area or > > > > the Level2 sub-domain. > I???ll take a > > pass at it. > > > > > (BTW ??? I am talking > about IS-IS > > area/L2sub-domain Toerless. ???) > > > > > > > > > > I don???t see that any > other > > clarification is needed ??? > but Toerless ??? if > > > > you can point to any > specific > > sentences/paragraphs which > you find confusing > > > > - I???ll take a second look. > > > > > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess there are no > BIER level, area > > or topologies, but still makes > > > > > reading easier if the > doc would say > > "ISIS level", "ISIS area", or at > > > > > least have them in the > Terminology > > section. And probably in > > > > > terminology say > "domain -> in the > > context of this document the BIER > > > > domain which is also the > same as the > > ISIS domain" > > > > > (which i hope is the > correct > > statement, see above). > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Toerless > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > BIER mailing list > > > > > BIER@ietf.org > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > > > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org><mailto:BIER@ietf.org > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>> > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier> > > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > We???ve heard that a > million monkeys > > at a million keyboards could > > > > produce the complete > works of > > Shakespeare; now, thanks to > the Internet, > > > > we know that is not true. > > > > > ???Robert Wilensky > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > > > tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de> <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>>____ > > > > __ __ > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BIER mailing list > > BIER@ietf.org > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> <mailto:BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier> > > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BIER mailing list > > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier> > > > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier> > > > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier> > > <image001.png> > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier> > > <image001.png>____ > > __ __ > > ____ > > __ __ > > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier> > >
- [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- [Bier] Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- [Bier] Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-… Xiejingrong