Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

That would be another alternative - incorporate the additional extensions into the base drafts.

Thanks,
Acee

On 8/3/22, 10:34 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Acee -

    My comment was only on the two IS-IS drafts:

    draft-ietf-bier-te-isis
    draft-zwx-bier-te-isis-extensions

    Your comment was apparently regarding all the IGP drafts.

    Fewer drafts is better in this case - and if BIER WG wants to follow the LSR model and combine IS-IS/OSPF/OSPFv3 into a single draft I am happy to support that.

    But even if BIER wants to maintain drafts per protocol, I see no reason to have multiple drafts per protocol for this functionality.

    I also support Acee's suggestion to Include BGP-LS support in the same draft.

        Les


    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
    > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:27 AM
    > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>;
    > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
    > Cc: [e-mail]; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
    > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
    > Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > On 8/3/22, 10:06 AM, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
    > <ginsberg=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    >     I tend to agree w Acee's comment.
    >     Two drafts seems excessive here.
    > 
    > Actually there are 3 (IS-IS, OSPF, OSPFv3), not even counting the inevitable
    > BGP-LS draft.
    > 
    > One point I made before on the cut and paste between drafts. In
    > OSPF/OSPFv3, Sub-TLVs are referred to as Sub-TLVs no matter what their
    > level of nesting. If we would have adopted the sub-sub....-TLV notation, we
    > have many levels of nesting for the CCAMP TE LSAs for Optical technologies.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > Acee
    > 
    >     If the argument is that you want to keep the IS-IS  MPLS related stuff in a
    > separate draft, I point out that RFC 8401 did NOT do that.
    > 
    >         Les
    > 
    >     > -----Original Message-----
    >     > From: BIER <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
    >     > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:10 AM
    >     > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
    >     > Cc: [e-mail];
    > ginsberg=[e-mail];
    >     > [e-mail]
    >     > Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt
    >     >
    >     > Hi Sandy,
    >     > Why didn't you put all the IGP extensions in the same draft in different
    >     > sections? It is basically the same two Sub-TLVs with different IANA
    >     > considerations. When you consolidate, can you also add the BGP-LS
    >     > extension?
    >     > Thanks,
    >     > Acee
    >     >
    >     > On 8/3/22, 4:11 AM, "BIER on behalf of [e-mail]" <bier-
    >     > [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
    >     >
    >     >     Hi Toerless,
    >     >     The BIFT-ID advertisement as you said in the email, has been defined in
    >     > these drafts:
    >     >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zwx-bier-te-isis-extensions/
    >     >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zwx-bier-te-ospf-extensions/
    >     >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zwx-bier-te-ospfv3-extensions/
    >     >     And these drafts was presented in IETF114 BIER WG meeting.
    >     >     Looking forward for your comments and suggestions.
    >     >     Best regards,
    >     >     Sandy
    >     >
    >     >     ------------------Original------------------
    >     >     From: ToerlessEckert <[e-mail]>
    >     >     To: Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>;
    >     >     Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
    >     > <ginsberg=[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
    >     >     Date: 2022年08月03日 12:05
    >     >     Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt
    >     >     Hey folks
    >     >     I am trying to wrap my head around how one would use these IS-IS
    >     > extensions for BIER-TE,
    >     >     and what if any of such semantic information might help the
    > document...
    >     >     The way i assume this extension to be used is that some poor
    >     > system/operator assigns BIER-TE
    >     >     bits and configures the actual BIER-TE BIFT entries with
    > forward_connected
    >     > entries to
    >     >     the neighbors. Similarily to how the same poor system/operator would
    >     > configure interface
    >     >     IP addresses on routers. This IS-IS work does not help to eliminate any
    > of
    >     > this initial provisioning. [Yes/No]
    >     >     The way the IS-IS kicks in is to disseminate the information from those
    >     > forward_connected BIER-TE
    >     >     BIFT entries across the domain, so that for example ingres-PE could
    >     > calculate BIER-TE paths through the
    >     >     topology. [Yes/No].
    >     >     If i am on the right track, then let me continue:
    >     >     The first detail is that these IS-IS entries will seemingly have some
    >     > elements from rfc5303
    >     >     that identify the interface and/or neighbor. So those need to match
    > what
    >     > would be found in
    >     >     the BIFT. I am not sure if it is obvious to every implementer how to
    > achieve
    >     > that without
    >     >     additional guidance. For example i guess we ALSO need to have the IS-
    > IS
    >     > signaling for the
    >     >     label ranges for the SD/SI in BIER. Have we checked thart we simply
    >     > should/can use them also
    >     >     for the SD that we use for BIER-TE ? I hope so, but i can not remember
    > the
    >     > discussion.
    >     >     Likewise for BIER-TE over L2 (not MPLS), we have the dependency
    > against
    >     > picking one particular
    >     >     bift-id encoding, and the "i don't know which" signaling we may have to
    >     > support it (could
    >     >     of course be all manual configured).
    >     >     Yes, this is just dependencies to make a deployment work, not
    > necessarily
    >     > something an
    >     >     IGP specialist wants to see in an IGP draft/RFC, but i hope we can have
    > this
    >     > more
    >     >     holistic discussion here ;-)
    >     >     So, then RFC5305 has all those wonderful adjacency parameters to help
    > for
    >     > example ingres
    >     >     PE CSPF calculations. And i remember those from  RSVP-TE days. But
    > now
    >     > the ISIS draft
    >     >     proposal introduces the BAR/IPA parameters, and i have never seen
    > those
    >     > being mentioned
    >     >     or used in conjunction with TE in general or CSPF specifically. So it
    > would be
    >     > great
    >     >     to have at least one example of how to use PAR/IPA be explained
    > here. If
    >     > we can not
    >     >     construct such examples, then BIER/IPA may be leftovers from the IS-
    > IS
    >     > encodings for
    >     >     BIER, where of course there is no CSPF and the like...
    >     >     Next question: Would it be possible to express with these IS-IS option
    > the
    >     > forward_routed()
    >     >     I think it would be great if we would build the IS-IS extensions such that
    >     > that is possible,
    >     >     because forward_routed entries can be a great help to get along with
    > the
    >     > available bits.
    >     >     I also would need to get my head around those IS-IS pseudonodes... if
    >     > anyone has an example,
    >     >     that would be great.
    >     >     Thanks so much!
    >     >     Toerless
    >     >     On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 02:58:53AM +0000, Huaimo Chen wrote:
    >     >     > Hi Les,
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
    >     >     >     I have addressed them in the updated draft (uploaded).
    >     >     >     My responses are also inline below with [HC].
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Best Regards,
    >     >     > Huaimo
    >     >     > -----Original Message-----
    >     >     > From: BIER <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
    >     > (ginsberg)
    >     >     > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 4:59 PM
    >     >     > To: [e-mail]
    >     >     > Subject: Re: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Some pedantic comments on this draft:
    >     >     >
    >     >     > For the new BIER-TE sub-TLV:
    >     >     >
    >     >     > 1)The relevant registry has been renamed to be "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for
    > TLVs
    >     > Advertising Neighbor Information". Please use this new name.
    >     >     >
    >     >
    > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
    >     > w.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fisis-tlv-codepoints%2Fisis-tlv-
    >     > codepoints.xhtml%23isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-neighbor-
    >     >
    > information&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C5b
    >     >
    > bd38c256024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%
    >     >
    > 7C1%7C0%7C637947251926210034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi
    >     >
    > MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C300
    >     >
    > 0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=ybC6zOJkG1sRe%2FQosV23MElysXHkg7jnHS70N
    >     > %2Bf7bpE%3D&amp;reserved=0
    >     >     > [HC]: I have renamed it as you suggested.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > 2)Please do NOT insert padding to keep content aligned on a 4 byte
    >     > boundary. This may be useful for OSPF, but it is not for IS-IS as TLVs are
    > NOT
    >     > aligned inside an LSP. All you are doing is wasting space - which is precious
    > in
    >     > IS-IS given the limited LSP space.
    >     >     > [HC]: Removed padding.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > 3)You say in Section 2:
    >     >     >
    >     >     > "Note that if each of BitPosition
    >     >     >    and DrEndBitPosition uses more than 2 octets, we use 4 or more
    > octets
    >     >     >    for each of them."
    >     >     >
    >     >     > I do not see how the receiver of the sub-TLV could tell whether the 2
    >     > octet or 4 octet encoding was sent as you have nothing that specifies the
    >     > length of these fields.
    >     >     > You can't use the total length of the sub-TLV as it could include
    > optional
    >     > sub-sub-TLVs.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > ??
    >     >     > [HC]: Deleted the quoted text.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > 4)In IANA section, I do not know why you specified "N" for TLVs 23
    > and
    >     > 223.
    >     >     > While RFC 5311 (which defines these TLVs) is not popular, if there was
    > an
    >     > implementation, I see no reason why it should be invalid to send the
    > BIER-TE
    >     > info in these TLVs.
    >     >     > [HC]: Changed "n" to "y" for TLVs 23 and 223.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Thanx.
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     Les
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     > > -----Original Message-----
    >     >     > > From: BIER <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of internet-
    >     > [e-mail]
    >     >     > > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 12:13 PM
    >     >     > > To: [e-mail]
    >     >     > > Cc: [e-mail]
    >     >     > > Subject: [Bier] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
    >     > directories.
    >     >     > > This draft is a work item of the Bit Indexed Explicit Replication WG
    > of
    >     > the IETF.
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > >         Title           : IS-IS Extensions for BIER-TE
    >     >     > >         Authors         : Huaimo Chen
    >     >     > >                           Mike McBride
    >     >     > >                           Aijun Wang
    >     >     > >                           Gyan S. Mishra
    >     >     > >                           Yanhe Fan
    >     >     > >                           Lei Liu
    >     >     > >                           Xufeng Liu
    >     >     > >   Filename        : draft-ietf-bier-te-isis-01.txt
    >     >     > >   Pages           : 7
    >     >     > >   Date            : 2022-07-29
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > > Abstract:
    >     >     > >    This document describes IS-IS extensions for distributing
    >     >     > >    BitPositions configured on the links in "Bit Index Explicit
    >     >     > >    Replication Traffic Engineering" (BIER-TE) domain.
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
    >     >     > >
    >     >
    > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata
    >     > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-bier-te-
    >     >
    > isis%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38
    >     >
    > c256024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1
    >     >
    > %7C0%7C637947251926210034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC
    >     >
    > 4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%
    >     >
    > 7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=99ojCa2m%2BTeMk0OfxeifsmVrhvNaK7jQJp0fu0syR
    >     > N8%3D&amp;reserved=0
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > > There is also an htmlized version available at:
    >     >     > >
    >     >
    > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata
    >     > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-bier-te-isis-
    >     >
    > 01&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38c256
    >     >
    > 024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0
    >     >
    > %7C637947251926210034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
    >     >
    > wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C
    >     >
    > %7C&amp;sdata=%2F8qaH0ZvQBAfGM4WIre0jpcI6As7wjXjdqbxOfdGHxo%3
    >     > D&amp;reserved=0
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > > A diff from the previous version is available at:
    >     >     > >
    >     >
    > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
    >     > w.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-bier-te-isis-
    >     >
    > 01&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38c256
    >     >
    > 024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0
    >     >
    > %7C637947251926210034%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
    >     >
    > wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C
    >     >
    > %7C&amp;sdata=L77o0dGWGuSwL9vSm1Durc56Fl5zONoDq%2F8ij12v9lc%3D
    >     > &amp;reserved=0
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at
    > rsync.ietf.org::internet-
    >     > drafts
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > >
    >     >     > > _______________________________________________
    >     >     > > BIER mailing list
    >     >     > > [e-mail]
    >     >     > >
    >     >
    > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
    >     >
    > w.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.c
    >     >
    > hen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38c256024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff
    >     >
    > 2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637947251926210034%7CUnkno
    >     >
    > wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
    >     >
    > haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=em5K2lvVvXwkSl
    >     > ye1egSX%2BgtdfeqDArSsAycQJTPArI%3D&amp;reserved=0
    >     >     >
    >     >     > _______________________________________________
    >     >     > BIER mailing list
    >     >     > [e-mail]
    >     >     >
    >     >
    > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
    >     >
    > w.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbier&amp;data=05%7C01%7Chuaimo.c
    >     >
    > hen%40futurewei.com%7C5bbd38c256024261ea5608da71a546c0%7C0fee8ff
    >     >
    > 2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637947251926210034%7CUnkno
    >     >
    > wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
    >     >
    > haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=em5K2lvVvXwkSl
    >     > ye1egSX%2BgtdfeqDArSsAycQJTPArI%3D&amp;reserved=0
    >     >     >
    >     >     --
    >     >     ---
    >     >     [e-mail]
    >     >     _______________________________________________
    >     >     BIER mailing list
    >     >     [e-mail]
    >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
    >     >
    >     >     _______________________________________________
    >     >     BIER mailing list
    >     >     [e-mail]
    >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
    >     >
    >     > _______________________________________________
    >     > BIER mailing list
    >     > [e-mail]
    >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier