Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Fri, 28 January 2022 17:12 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 5167E3A0BCB; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:12:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 3N18fGvyB62n; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:11:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46A783A0A06; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:11:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EBDA58C4B2; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:11:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4AAFE4EA4BD; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:11:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:11:43 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-bier-te-arch@ietf.org, "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <gengxuesong@huawei.com>, BIER WG Chairs <bier-chairs@ietf.org>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YfQjzzWgJLBrDrfF@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyGszotDPReWZKxCTZ3w6m_zz+3fhU0XUYMPo=DAS0d9w@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/rkJxZS3KUJn6Pf9ZsHbpoat7G_E>
Subject: Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 28 Jan 2022 17:12:09 -0000
Alvaro, * -12 as just posted should close all outstanding DISCUSS (the one from Ben) as well as answer all IESG/*directorate review nits/comments, so this could/should be the version to post to RFC-Editor queue. No functional changes where incurred through any of the reviews, except of course fixing of the pseudocode by moving the "~" the right code line through Ben's DISCUSS, so this should all be benign. There are a few language questions open with [RFC-Editor ] notes preceeding them. Spell check run. Specifically for your review: - The leftover fixes from -09 where applied (move SR into appendix, removed beauty contest header from example section, which will be removed in RFC). - One of your nits made me rewrite the paragraphs of section 4.1 leading up to Figure 4, but i felt it was important to eliminate confusion about terminology between BIER/BIER-TE, and your reply seemed to indicate the existing text (nor your suggestion) did achieve that. Full diff from -11 to -12: http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-11.txt&url2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-12.txt Diff with just the deltas for your feedback: http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/toerless/bier-te-arch/fbb26ac4d2cc5dd841e36a00801f58ad5c7eae11/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/toerless/bier-te-arch/3391606088a0a73513e6be40a895afb27493f244/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch.txt Thanks again for your review. Toerless On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:21:31PM -0400, Alvaro Retana wrote: > Hi! > > This is a quick review of -10. Most of the comments are minor or nits. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > > [Line numbers from idnits for -10.] > > ... > 135 1. Overview > > 137 BIER-TE is based on architecture, terminology and packet formats with > 138 BIER as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. This document > 139 describes BIER-TE in the expectation that the reader is familiar with > 140 these two documents. > > [minor] s/based on architecture, terminology and packet formats with > BIER as described/based on the BIER architecture, terminology and > packet formats with as described Fixed. > ... > 180 o Section 5 describes operational considerations for the BIER-TE > 181 controller, foremost how the BIER-TE controller can optimize the > 182 use of BP by using specific type of BIER-TE adjacencies for > 183 different type of topological situations, but also how to assign > 184 bits to avoid loops and duplicates (which in BIER-TE does not come > 185 for free), and finally how SI, sub-domains and BFR-ids can be > 186 managed by a BIER-TE controller, examples and summary. > > [nit] s/by using specific type of BIER-TE adjacencies for different > type of topological situations/by using specific BIER-TE adjacencies > in different topological situations > > > 188 o Section 6 concludes the technology specific sections of document > 189 by further relating BIER-TE to Segment Routing (SR). > > [nit] s/of document/of the document Fixed already through other reviewer feedback. > ... > 335 2.2. BIER-TE Topology and adjacencies > ... > 342 The BIER-TE Topology consists of the BIFTs of all the BFR and can > 343 also be expressed as a directed graph where the edges are the > 344 adjacencies between the BFR labelled with the BP used for the > 345 adjacency. Adjacencies are naturally unidirectional. BP can be > 346 reused across multiple adjacencies as long as this does not lead to > 347 undesired duplicates or loops as explained further down in the text. > > [nit] s/between the BFR/between the BFRs Fixed. > ... > 357 2.3. Relationship to BIER > > 359 BIER-TE is designed so that is forwarding plane is a simple extension > 360 to the BIER forwarding plane, hence allowing for it to be added to > 361 BIER deployments where it can be beneficial. > > [nit] s/is forwarding/its forwarding Fixed already through other reviewer feedback. > ... > 370 1. The fundamental purpose of per-packet signaled packet > 371 replication and delivery via a BitString. > > [nit] s/per-packet signaled packet replication/per-packet signaled replication Fixed. > ... > 376 3. The supportable encapsulations, [RFC8296] or other (future) > 377 encapsulations. > > [nit] s/supportable encapsulations, [RFC8296]/supported encapsulations [RFC8296] Fixed. > ... > 412 1. BIRTs on BFR for BIER-TE are not required when using a BIER- > 413 TE controller because the controller can directly populate > 414 the BIFTs. In BIER, BIRTs are populated by the distributed > 415 routing protocol support for BIER, allowing BFR to populate > 416 their BIFTs locally from their BIRTs. Other BIER-TE control > 417 plane or management plane options may introduce requirements > 418 for BIRTs for BIER-TE BFR. > > [minor] Expand first occurrence of BIRT. Fixed. > 420 2. The BIER-TE layer forwarding plane does not require BFR to > 421 have a unique BP and therefore also no unique BFR-id. See > 422 for example See Section 5.1.3. > > [nit] s/require BFR/require a BFR actually meant to say "require BFRs". > ... > 436 1. The BIER/BIER-TE packet header needs to allow addressing both > 437 BIER and BIER-TE BIFT. Depending on the encapsulation > 438 option, the same SD may or may not be reusable across BIER > 439 and BIER-TE. See Section 4.3. In either case, a packet is > 440 always only forwarded end-to-end via BIER or via BIER-TE > 441 (ships in the nights forwarding). > > [nit] s/both BIER and BIER-TE BIFT/both the BIER and BIER-TE BIFTs fixed. > 443 2. BIER-TE deployments will have to assign BFR-ids to BFR and > 444 insert them into the BFR-id field of BIER packet headers as > 445 BIER does, whenever the deployment uses (unchanged) > 446 components developed for BIER that use BFR-id, such as > 447 multicast flow overlays or BIER layer control plane elements. > 448 See also Section 5.3.3. > > [nit] s/to BFR/to BFRs already fixed. > 450 2.4. Accelerated/Hardware forwarding comparison > > 452 Forwarding of BIER-TE is designed to easily build/program common > 453 forwarding hardware with BIER. The pseudocode in Section 4.4 shows > 454 how existing BIER/BIFT forwarding can be modified to support the > 455 REQUIRED BIER-TE forwarding functionality, by using BIER BIFT's > 456 "Forwarding Bit Mask" (F-BM): Only the clearing of bits to avoid > 457 duplicate packets to a BFR neighbor is skipped in BIER-TE forwarding > 458 because it is not necessary and could not be done when using BIER > 459 F-BM. > > [major] s/REQUIRED BIER-TE forwarding/required BIER-TE forwarding > In context, there is no normative action, just a statement of fact. > Nonetheless, a reference to §4.6 would be nice. done. > 501 3.2. The BIER-TE Control Plane > ... > 509 For BIER-TE, the control plane includes at minimum the following > 510 functionality. > > [minor] It would be useful to point at the sections where each piece > of functionality is described -- even if it is at just a high-level of > granularity. Done. I also added one additional paragraph to 3.1, Flow Overlay which so far just had a measly one line of text: <t>When a BIER-TE controller is used, then the signalling for the Multicast Flow Overlay may also be preferred to operate through a central point of control. For BGP based overlay flow services such as "Multicast VPN Using BIER" (<xref target="RFC8556"/>) this can be achieved by making the BIER-TE controller operate as a BGP Route Reflector (<xref target="RFC4456"/>) and combining it with signaling through BGP or a different protocol for the BIER-TE controller calculated BitStrings. See <xref target="engineered-bitstrings"/> and <xref target="bitstring-mappings"/>.</t> Hope this gives a good high-level BIER-TE centric view of where this could go (beyond all the explanations in rfc8279). > ... > 545 3.2.1. The BIER-TE Controller > > 547 Notwithstanding other options, this architecture describes the BIER > 548 control plane as shown in Figure 3 to consists of: > > [nit] s/to consists/to consist fixed. > 550 o A single centralized BIER-TE controller. > > [minor] Perhaps remove "single centralized" which gives the impression > of single-point-of-failure/attack point -- where we all know that in > general the controller may not be a single box, etc.. fixed. > 552 o Data-models and protocols to communicate between controller and > 553 BFR in step 1, such YANG/Netconf/RestConf. > > [?] Step 1? I think that you're referring to the list in the previous > section -- please indicate there that they represent "steps". On > second thought, it looks like only a couple of places refer back to > the list as steps; maybe find an alternate way to refer to them. For anothre reviewer, 3.2 was improved to introduce the terms "BIER-TE topology control" and "BIER-TE tree control" for the main bullet points and those are then referred to in this 3.2.1 bullet point list. I hope this solves your concerns. > [minor] Only in "step 1"? was removed as part of above points modification.. > [minor] There is some programmability-related work to be done in step 2. I now have "BFR data-models and protocols ... in support of BIER-TE topology/tree control" for both steps. When you mention "programmability", not sure exactly what you are referring to, but i stumbled across "The BIFT is programmed into the data plane" in 4.1, and replaced that with consistent language: <t>The BIFT is configured for the data plane of a BFR by the BIER-TE Controller through an appropriate protocol and data-model. Aka: avoiding "programm(ability)" for any of this and just using it data-model and protocols. > > 555 o Protocols to communicate between controller and BFIR in step 2, > 556 such as BIER-TE extensions for [RFC5440]. > > [minor] Same question...only step 2? Also removed. > [minor] It's not clear to me why (it any extensions are TBD) a PCE can't be used for step 1, and viceversa. Not sure i parse the sentence, but indeed i do consider a BIER-TE controller to include a PCE. > 567 3.2.1.1. BIER-TE Topology discovery and creation > > 569 Step 1.1 includes network topology discovery and BIER-TE topology > 570 creation. The latter describes the process by which a Controller > 571 determines which routers are to be configured as BFR and the > 572 adjacencies between them. > > [nit] s/as BFR/as BFRs fixed. > 583 Dynamic creation of the BIER-TE topology can be as easy as mapping > 584 the network topology 1:1 to the BIER-TE topology by assigning a BP > 585 for every network subnet adjacency. In larger networks, it likely > 586 involves more complex policy and optimization decisions including how > 587 to minimize the number of BP required and how to assign BP across > 588 different BitStrings to minimize the number of duplicate packets > 589 across links when delivering an overlay flow to BFER using different > 590 SIs/BitStrings. These topics are discussed in Section 5. > > [nit] s/number of BP/number of BPs fixed. > [nit] s/assign BP/assign BPs fixed. > 598 Communications between the BIER-TE Controller and BFRs (beside > 599 topology discovery) is ideally via standardized protocols and data- > 600 models such as Netconf/RestConf/Yang/PCEP. Vendor-specific CLI on > 601 the BFRs is also an option (as in many other SDN solutions lacking > 602 definition of standardized data model). > > [nit] s/standardized data model/standardized data models fixed. > 604 3.2.1.2. Engineered Trees via BitStrings > > 606 In BIER, the same set of BFER in a single sub-domain is always > 607 encoded as the same BitString. In BIER-TE, the BitString used to > 608 reach the same set of BFER in the same sub-domain can be different > 609 for different overlay flows because the BitString encodes the paths > 610 towards the BFER, so the BitStrings from different BFIR to the same > 611 set of BFER will often be different, and the BitString from the same > 612 BFIR to the same set of BFER can different for different overlay > 613 flows for policy reasons such as shortest path trees, Steiner trees > 614 (minimum cost trees), diverse path trees for redundancy and so on. > > [nit] s/can different/can be different already fixed. > 640 3.3. The BIER-TE Forwarding Plane > > 642 The BIER-TE Forwarding Plane constitutes of the following components: > > [nit] s/constitutes of/is constituted by Other reviewers suggested other solutions, i now picked "is constituted from" and have an RFC-editor note to resolve it with RFC-editor. > 644 1. On BFIR imposition of BIER header for packets from overlay flows. > 645 This is driven by a combination of state established by the BIER- > 646 TE control plane and/or the multicast flow overlay as explained > 647 in Section 3.1. > > [nit] s/On BFIR/On a BFIR, fixed. > [nit] s/of BIER header/of the BIER header > > > 649 2. On BFR (including BFIR and BFER), forwarding/replication of BIER > 650 packets according to their BitString as explained below and > 651 optionally Entropy. Processing of other BIER header fields such > 652 as DSCP is outside the scope of this document. > > [nit] s/On BFR/On a BFR fixed. > [minor] "as explained below" A specific reference would be nice. fixed. > [major] "Processing of other BIER header fields such as DSCP is > outside the scope of this document." Better wording might be that it > is unchanged. Is that the intent? No change. "Unchanged" would make me cringe because it would sound like the reader would find useful prior information, but rfc8279 doesn't mention additional fields (such as DSCP) at all, and even rfc8296 just says that its not used by MPLS encap by default. And both docs use out of scope for other things too so its a favourite way to define the boundaries of our docs. Remember that rfc8296 is a "committee header" to try to apease both MPLS and IP desires for BIER, but the IP side did not have much interest, so the idea is "when you use BIER with IP, fields like DSCP and TTL are probably exactly as with IP... but we haven't really thoroughly studied or documented that". > 654 3. On BFER removal of BIER header and dispatching of the payload > 655 according to state created by the BIER-TE control plane and/or > 656 overlay layer. > > [nit] s/On BFER/On a BFER, Actually changed to BFRs, better matches the fact that it can be multiple (for one original packet after replication). > ... > 746 4.1. The Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT) > ... > 756 In [RFC8279], Figure 2, indices into the BIFT are both SI:BitString > 757 and BFR-id, where BitString is indicating a BP: BFR-id = SI * 2^BSL + > 758 BP. As shown in Figure 4, in BIER-TE, only SI:BP are used as indices > 759 into a BIFT because they identify adjacencies and not BFR. > > [minor] I think that the formula makes things sound more complicated. > Suggestion> > Figure 2 of [rfc8279] uses both SI:BitString and BFR-id as indices into > the BIFT. As shown in Figure 4 (below), in BIER-TE only SI:BP are used > as indices into a BIFT because they identify adjacencies and not BFR. Ok., there is a bug in the formula... but its more difficult to explain everything without formula. And your suggestion makes me think my text was confusing *sigh*. So, i ended up rewriting the paragraphs of 4.1 leading up to the BIFT figure, and also improved the BIFT figure. Got a bit longer *sigh*, but its really difficult to ensure no confusion ensues when not being detailled about all the terms used and what they do. Pls. check. > ... > 835 4.2.3. ECMP > ... > 840 A BIER-TE "Equal Cost Multipath" (ECMP) adjacency has a list of two > 841 or more non-ECMP adjacencies and a seed parameter. When a BIER-TE > 842 packet is copied onto such an ECMP adjacency, an implementation > 843 specific so-called hash function will select one out of the lists > 844 adjacencies to which the packet is forwarded. This ECMP hash > 845 function MUST select the same adjacency from that list for all > 846 packets with the same entropy parameter. The seed parameter allows > 847 to design hash functions that are easy to implement at high speed > 848 without running into polarization issues across multiple consecutive > 849 ECMP hops. See Section 5.1.7 for more explanations. > > [minor] s/non-ECMP/ECMP That was actually correctly, but i further elaborated the sentence to point to the picture showing the parameters: <t>A BIER-TE "Equal Cost Multipath" (ECMP()) adjacency as shown in <xref target="adjacencies"/> for BIFT-index 7 has a list of two or more non-ECMP adjacencies as parameters and an optional seed parameter. > 861 4.3. Encapsulation / Co-existence with BIER > ... > 881 With MPLS, it is also possible to reuse the same SD space for both > 882 BIER-TE and BIER, so that the same SD has both a BIER BIFT and > 883 according range of BIFT-ids and a disjoint BIER-TE BIFT and non- > 884 overlapping range of BIFT-ids. > > [minor] s/and according range of BIFT-ids/with a corresponding range > of BIFT-ids, > [nit] s/and non-overlapping/and a non-overlapping Fixed. > 886 When a fixed mapping from BSL, SD, SI is used without specifically > 887 distinguishing BIER and BIER-TE, such as proposed for non-MPLS > 888 forwarding with [RFC8296] in [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] > 889 revision 04, section 5., then it is necessary to allocate disjoint > 890 SDs to BIER and BIER-TE BIFT so that both can be addressed by the > 891 BIFT-ids. The encoding proposed in section 6. of the same document > 892 does not statically encode BSL or SD into the BIFT-id, but allows for > 893 a mapping, and hence could provide for the same freedom as when MPLS > 894 is being used (same or different SD for BIER/BIER-TE). > > [nit] s/5.,/5, fixed. > [nit] s/BIER and BIER-TE BIFT/BIER and BIER-TE BIFTs fixed. > 908 4.4. BIER-TE Forwarding Pseudocode > ... > 914 void ForwardBitMaskPacket_withTE (Packet) > 915 { > 916 SI=GetPacketSI(Packet); > 917 Offset=SI*BitStringLength; > 918 for (Index = GetFirstbit position(Packet->BitString); Index ; > 919 Index = GetNextbit position(Packet->BitString, Index)) { > 920 F-BM = BIFT[Index+Offset]->F-BM; > 921 if (!F-BM) continue; [3] > 922 BFR-NBR = BIFT[Index+Offset]->BFR-NBR; > 923 PacketCopy = Copy(Packet); > 924 PacketCopy->BitString &= F-BM; [2] > 925 PacketSend(PacketCopy, BFR-NBR); > 926 // The following must not be done for BIER-TE: > 927 // Packet->BitString &= ~F-BM; [1] > 928 } > 929 } > > [nit] s/GetFirstbit position/GetFirstbitPosition > [nit] s/GetNextbit position/GetNextbitPosition fixed. > 974 This Forwarding Pseudocode can support the REQUIRED BIER-TE > 975 forwarding functions (see Section 4.6), forward_connected, > 976 forward_routed() and local decap, but not the RECOMMENDED functions > 977 DNC flag and multiple adjacencies per bit nor the OPTIONAL function, > 978 ECMP adjacencies. The DNC flag cannot be supported when using only > 979 [1] to mask bits. > > [major] s/REQUIRED...RECOMMENDED...OPTIONAL/required...recommended...optional > This text is not normative, just a description. Fixed. > 1144 4.6. BFR Requirements for BIER-TE forwarding > > 1146 BFR MUST support to configure the BIFT of sub-domains so that they > 1147 use BIER-TE forwarding rules instead of BIER forwarding rules. Every > 1148 BP in the BIFT MUST support to have zero or one adjacency. > 1149 Forwarding MUST support the adjacency types forward_connected() with > 1150 clear DNC flag, forward_routed() and local_decap. As explained in > 1151 Section 4.4, these REQUIRED BIER-TE forwarding functions can be > 1152 implement via the same Forwarding Pseudocode as BIER forwarding > 1153 except for one modification (skipping one masking with F-BM). > > [minor] s/support to configure/support configuring Actually changed the sentence through anothrer reviewer to read easier already. > [nit] s/clear DNC flag/a clear DNC flag Also changed by proposal of othre reviewer to "with DNC flag not set" > [major] s/REQUIRED/required > Not a normative statement. fixed. > 1159 BIER-TE forwarding SHOULD support more than one adjacency on a bit. > 1160 This allows to save bits in hub&spoke scenarios (see Section 5.1.5). > > [nit] s/hub&spoke/hub and spoke fixed (also in other places). > 1162 BIER-TE forwarding MAY support ECMP adjacencies to save bits in ECMP > 1163 scenarios, see Section 5.1.7 for an example. This is a MAY > 1164 requirement, because the deployment importance of ECMP adjacencies > 1165 for BIER-TE is unclear as one can also leverage ECMP of the routing > 1166 underlay via forwarded_routed adjacencies and/or might prefer to have > 1167 more explicit control of the path chosen via explicit BP/adjacencies > 1168 for each ECMP path alternative. > > [major] s/a MAY requirement/an optional requirement fixed. > [minor] s/the deployment importance of ECMP adjacencies for BIER-TE is > unclear as/for ECMP deployments using BIER-TE fixed (nice shortening). > 1183 5.1.1. P2P Links > > 1185 On a P2P link that connects two BFR, the same bit position can be > 1186 used on both BFR for the adjacency to the neighboring BFR. A P2P > 1187 link requires therefore only one bit position. > > [nit] s/two BFR/two BFRs > [nit] s/both BFR/both BFRs fixed. > 1194 5.1.3. Leaf BFERs > ... > 1209 A leaf BFERs is one where incoming BIER-TE packets never need to be > 1210 forwarded to another BFR but are only sent to the BFER to exit the > 1211 BIER-TE domain. For example, in networks where Provider Edge (PE) > 1212 router are spokes connected to Provider (P) routers, those PEs are > 1213 Leaf BFERs unless there is a U-turn between two PEs. > > [nit] s/A leaf BFERs/A leaf BFER fixed already. > 1492 5.1.9. Reuse of bit positions (without DNC) > ... > 1544 Figure 17: Reuse of BP > > 1546 Reuse may also save BPs in larger topologies. Consider the topology > 1547 shown in Figure 20. A BFIR/sender (e.g.: video headend) is attached > 1548 to area 1, and area 2...6 contain receivers/BFER. Assume each area > 1549 had a distribution ring, each with two BPs to indicate the direction > 1550 (as explained before). These two BPs could be reused across the 5 > 1551 areas. Packets would be replicated through other BPs for the Core to > 1552 the desired subset of areas, and once a packet copy reaches the ring > 1553 of the area, the two ring BPs come into play. This reuse is a case > 1554 of (B), but it limits the topology choices: Packets can only flow > 1555 around the same direction in the rings of all areas. This may or may > 1556 not be acceptable based on the desired path steering options: If > 1557 resilient transmission is the path engineering goal, then it is > 1558 likely a good optimization, if the bandwidth of each ring was to be > 1559 optimized separately, it would not be a good limitation. > > [minor] s/Figure 20/Figure 17 Fixed already. > 1561 5.1.10. Summary of BP optimizations > ... > 1603 Note that the described list of optimizations is not exhaustive. > 1604 Especially when the set of required path steering choices is limited > 1605 and the set of possible subsets of BFERs that should be able to > 1606 receive traffic is limited, further optimizations of BP are possible. > 1607 The hub & spoke optimization is a simple example of such traffic > 1608 pattern dependent optimizations. > > [nit] s/hub & spoke/hub and spoke ack. > 1757 5.3.3. Assigning BFR-id with BIER-TE > > 1759 BIER-TE forwarding does not use the BFR-id, not does it require for > 1760 the BFR-id field of the BIER header to be set to a particular value. > 1761 However, other parts of a BIER-TE deployment may need a BFR-id, > 1762 specifically overlay signaling, and in that case BFR need to also > 1763 have BFR-ids for BIER-TE SDs. > > [nit] s/BFR need/BFRs need fixed. > 1765 For example, for BIER overlay signaling, BFIR need to have a BFR-id, > 1766 because this BFIR BFR-id is carried in the BFR-id field of the BIER > 1767 header to indicate to the overlay signaling on the receiving BFER > 1768 which BFIR originated the packet. > > [nit] s/BFIR need/BFIRs need fixed. > 1781 As explained in Section 5.1.3, leaf BFERs do not need such a unique > 1782 local_decap() adjacency, likewise, BFIR who are not also BFER may not > 1783 have a unique local_decap() adjacency either. For all those BFIR and > 1784 (leaf) BFER, the controller needs to determine unique BFR-ids that do > 1785 not collide with the BFR-ids derived from the non-leaf BFER > 1786 local_decap() BPs. > > [nit] s/BFIR who are not also BFER/BFIRs that are not also BFERs fixed. > [nit] s/BFIR and (leaf) BFER/BFIRs and (leaf) BFERs fixed. > 1788 While this document defines no requirements how to allocate such BFR- > 1789 id, a simple option is to derive it from the (SI,BP) of an adjacency > 1790 that is unique to the BFR in question. For a BFIR this can be he > 1791 first adjacency only populated on this BFIR, for a leaf-BFER, this > 1792 could be the first BP with an adjacency towards that BFER. > > [nit] s/requirements how/requirements on how fixed > [nit] s/can be he/can be the already fixed > 1794 5.3.4. Mapping from BFR to BitStrings with BIER-TE > > 1796 In BIER, applications of the flow overlay on a BFIR can calculate the > 1797 (SI,BP) of a BFER from the BFR-id of the BFER and can therefore > 1798 easily determine the BitStrings for a BIER packet to a set of BFER > 1799 with known BFR-ids. > [nit] s/set of BFER/set of BFERs fixed. > 1817 If "independent branches" are used, the BIER-TE Controller can signal > 1818 to the BFIR flow overlay for every BFER an SI:BitString that > 1819 represents the branch to that BFER. The flow overlay on the BIFR can > 1820 then independently of the controller calculate the SI:BitString for > 1821 all desired BFER by OR'ing their BitStrings. This allows for flow > 1822 overlay applications to operate independently from the controller > 1823 whenever it needs to determine which subset of BFERs need to receive > 1824 a particular packet. > > > [nit] s/all desired BFER/all desired BFERs fixed. > 1838 Communications between BFIR flow overlay and BIER-TE controller > 1839 requires some way to identify BFER. If BFR-ids are used in the > 1840 deployment, as outlined in Section 5.3.3, then those are the natural > 1841 BFR identifier. If BFR-ids are not used, then any other unique > 1842 identifier, such as the BFR-prefix of the BFR as of [RFC8279] could > 1843 be used. > > [nit] s/BIER-TE controller/the BIER-TE controller fixed. > [nit] s/identify BFER/identify the BFER fixed. > [minor] s/BFR-prefix of the BFR as of [RFC8279]/BFR-prefix of the BFR [RFC8279] fixed. > ... > 2031 7. Security Considerations > ... > 2046 The reference model for the BIER-TE layer control plane is a BIER-TE > 2047 controller. When such a controller is used, impairment of individual > 2048 BFR in a domain causes no impairment of the BIER-TE control plane on > 2049 other BFR. If a routing protocol is used to support forward_routed() > 2050 adjacencies, then this is still an attack vector as in BIER, but only > 2051 for BIER-TE forward_routed() adjacencies, and no other adjacencies. > > [nit] s/of individual/of an individual fixed. > [nit] s/other BFR/other BFRs fixed. > [EoR -10]
- [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10 Alvaro Retana
- [Bier] HELP: truncated email (was: Re: AD Review … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Bier] HELP: truncated email (was: Re: AD Rev… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Bier] HELP: truncated email (was: Re: AD Rev… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Bier] AD Review of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10 Toerless Eckert