Re: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-wijnandsxu-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-01

IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> Tue, 27 February 2018 17:25 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 5744C12D875 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:25:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, 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 EaGokQuMNGFO for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:25:42 -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 5A3A912D941 for <bier@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:25:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2198; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519752322; x=1520961922; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nVmwrNQ+hvuMl7PaOcjIjhhSDeuNe9fAnU0HdFqfmrk=; b=WCPsX3ZimQ39HyIrGfFomgUo4bVdrw5+E9jEyFtRYMLe2tr+vXY51m6m +KwVLQgJJ4DRMP+CA1A70HaIVh+hcxhZiMblaH3SGD1sZ6Daltf8Ussc6 JBEDO94zrNQY7NU8fWiIjhZkbAMMluzks4dtsOm7oDyvIPrUcEU9BFYQL g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CyAwBZk5Va/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYUmg3yLFo1OAQEBAQEFAYENIgWBFpY/CoIAgzICgyQUAQIBAQEBAQECayiFJAEEAR0GVgULCxoCJgICVwaFGwUIq3KCJ4Ryg36CFgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BD4dKgi4pDIJ4hSGDDTCCMgWTOYcVCZBxjnSOXoJFAgQLAhkBgS41IYFRTSMVZAGCGT2EHT+NCQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,401,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="2274770"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Feb 2018 17:25:20 +0000
Received: from ams-iwijnand-88112.cisco.com (ams-iwijnand-88112.cisco.com [10.60.202.93]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1RHPJjF029210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:25:20 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <938789da-1902-1a0e-98af-b2476204be62@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 18:25:19 +0100
Cc: gjshep@gmail.com, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2B0FFBC1-FB91-4A6C-9800-69401C76B095@cisco.com>
References: <CABFReBrfrJU9u=ugG6Fs2dmZ+5vSs5pxySajfv9B7yvPuDW+hQ@mail.gmail.com> <938789da-1902-1a0e-98af-b2476204be62@juniper.net>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/xC858i0ezRHDA7GZr0JqNcyRdR8>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Call for adoption: draft-wijnandsxu-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-01
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, 27 Feb 2018 17:25:44 -0000

Eric,

Thanks for the comments.

> That may be true.  However, there are many procedures that can be used to assign domain-wide unique BIFT-ids.  There is no reason for the WG to give the appearance of endorsing any one procedure over any of the thousands of others.  This is really a decision for the network operators.  So I think the document is not very useful.

This is indeed a decision that is made by the operator on how to assign a BIFT-id to the <SD,SI,BSL> triple. It is perfectly valid for operator to do exactly what is described in this draft (encode <SD,SI,BSL> into the BIFT), without having this draft. Documenting one mechanism where we take the triple and auto-generate a BIFT-id I think is useful and simplifies the OAM procedures. If we want to be interoperable among different vendors, I think it is good to have this documented.

> I do however think the document is harmful.  It will inevitably result in the deployment of software (if not hardware) that cannot process non-MPLS BIER packets in which the BIFT-id is not formed according to the rules of this draft.

I don’t think there is a benefit for treating the 20 bit BIFT-id any different than a 20bit value, so I’m less concerned.

> 
> Yes, yes, the draft says that the use of this encoding is OPTIONAL, and the draft is merely Informational.  That won't help us much when some implementation (either from a vendor, or open source) gets deployed that requires the use of this encoding.  
> 
> Drafts that are harmful but not useful should not be adopted by the WG.

Not having to manage the BIFT-id assignments is useful to the operators I think.

> If this draft proceeds, I suggest it be turned into an Independent Submission, so that it can be made clear that the draft just describes a suggestion by the authors.

As long as we get something posted and we can be interoperable I’m good. Although I don’t really think it going to matter to implementors what the official status of the document is. It will not prevent them from mis-behaving if they really want to.

Thx,

Ice.