IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] Proposed mods for architecture draft

IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ice@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 29A19127775 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.503 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 d67v0u5X0XwE for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D6661276AF for <bier@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=386; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498062257; x=1499271857; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6mzuuIueO/vOajFu6zGEyJbt5eWES1/l+3xrslHqNtM=; b=Mq/0aDbAiU8o9NTU00+EveisOyHlk6Gr11D7TD/78tEJ2PbDUcseeJiB 0jyCt4LlzapCLkMoqJSCCpeuGZB3KPnKVChwV6un/KP2sxESSlJfEMai/ M18yhqLdHmn3OQUTnutMHCoZHlr3jBvcBTJ0DlZ3+A+8orGwUx+lHrjug I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DKAgAhnUpZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBlD+PNQEBAQEBAQUBgSQBA5gJhiQCgzgUAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGQEEATo/BQsLEjRJDgaKMgUIrEuLVAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2GJoJSgnmEaoNCgjEBBJcdh0WTYoFwAZAdkEaESzYhgQpRIxVbAYJohBY+iiABAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,369,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="652745754"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2017 16:24:13 +0000
Received: from ams-iwijnand-8814.cisco.com (ams-iwijnand-8814.cisco.com [10.60.202.85]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5LGOC0N017280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:24:13 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <d5ee5ae2-e0e8-342c-bbeb-b2acfa471373@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:24:12 +0200
Cc: "BIER (bier@ietf.org)" <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D3DDEC68-6E8B-4BDC-AD37-FD8D6FBD64C0@cisco.com>
References: <a97d1160-0fe9-e608-1dc3-8a3dbb44aaa7@juniper.net> <FD5D9B15-8184-4EDA-B532-6B53A44EB687@cisco.com> <d5ee5ae2-e0e8-342c-bbeb-b2acfa471373@juniper.net>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/vCmmCU7qpfsOTuW7AYEUX8djs0U>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Proposed mods for architecture draft
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:24:19 -0000

Thanks Eric, this text works for me!

> It's been pointed out that this prevents a set of BFERs from having a shared anycast address as an additional BFR-Prefix.  I am not too bothered by this as the use of anycast addresses by multicast receivers doesn't seem too crucial, and allowing that would count as a "new feature".
> 
> Objections?

Nope!

Thx,

Ice.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email