Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang
<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Fri, 10 May 2019 08:55 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 B0AD01201C3 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2019 01:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ws83_BcjZk6m for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2019 01:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0711200A4 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2019 01:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id EBBDF90104D831851F8A for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2019 16:55:38 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id CC6EBDC189FE97D48E49; Fri, 10 May 2019 16:55:38 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x4A8tKch037898; Fri, 10 May 2019 16:55:20 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Fri, 10 May 2019 16:55:19 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 16:55:19 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd5cd53c772fd60cb1
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201905101655198377346@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <0F70AB4850DED443831FABD19947F6A57F01202D@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: 201905100920530185980@zte.com.cn, 0F70AB4850DED443831FABD19947F6A57F01202D@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: benjamin.r@huawei.com
Cc: bier@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn x4A8tKch037898
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/yjIcW3N2YCL0ud9dLYiPOoU3BPU>
Subject: Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang
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, 10 May 2019 08:55:49 -0000
Hi Ben, Thank you for your response! Please find my answer below with [Sandy2]. Thanks, Sandy 原始邮件 发件人:benjaminr <benjamin.r@huawei.com> 收件人:张征00007940;bier@ietf.org <bier@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2019年05月10日 14:28 主 题 :RE: Re:[Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang Hi Sandy, Thanks for the reply. Please find my reply below. Thanks Benjamin R VRP PDU, Network Business Line Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield Bengaluru-560066, Karnataka Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext II Mob: 8123906320 Email: benjamin.r@huawei.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn [mailto:zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 6:51 AM To: benjamin r <benjamin.r@huawei.com> Cc: bier@ietf.org Subject: Re:[Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang Hi Ben, Thank you very much for your comments! Please find my answer below with [Sandy]. Thanks, Sandy 原始邮件 发件人:benjaminr <benjamin.r@huawei.com> 收件人:BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>; 日 期 :2019年05月09日 22:44 主 题 :[Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang _______________________________________________ BIER mailing list BIER@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier Hi, Authors, please clarify the below questions. module: ietf-bier-te augment /rt:routing: +--rw bier-te +--rw subdomain* [subdomain-id] +--rw subdomain-id uint16 +--rw te-adj-id | +--rw si* [si] | +--rw si uint16 | +--rw adj* [adj-id] | +--rw adj-id uint16 | +--rw adj-if if:interface-ref | +--rw bp-type? Enumeration // BEN1 BEN1// Bp-type is the property of interface and I think the bp-type will not change (or) need to be configured for each SD. Example: bp-type of an interface is p2p no matter the SD ? Considering this, can we remove this config under SD and instead define this bp-type configuration under bier-te/adj-if This means, a hierarchy like “bier-te/adj-if/bp-type”. [Sandy] The BIER-TE's BP is different with BIER. The BP of BIER-TE should under SD and SI. Please find the description in the first paragraph, section 1 in "draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-01". " The Bit Index Forwarding Table (BIFT) exists in every BFR. For every subdomain in use, it is a table indexed by SI:BitPosition and is populated by the BIER-TE control plane. Each index can be empty or contain a list of one or more adjacencies. " [BEN] Sandy, I agree meaning of BP is different in BIER-TE(refers to adjacencies), and should be under SD/SI/BSL. The point I am telling is about BP-Type (not Bit position) which is the adjacency type(p2p/ring etc.), I think it should not be under SD/SI. Instead it should be under adj-if(adjacency interface). Because, regardless of SD/SI, the adjacency type (p2p/ring etc..) is going to be the same. So, I suggest we can rename the bp-type to adj-type and have it like “bier-te/adj-if/adj-type”. [Sandy2] You mean that we split the model into two parts, one is for adj-if configuration, and another is for forwarding table. And the adj-if configuration is indexed by adjacency not BP. Am I unstandand right? If I understand right, OK. we can do this change. +--rw bsl* [fwd-bsl] | +--rw fwd-bsl uint16 | +--rw si* [si] | +--rw si uint16 | +--rw te-bift-id | | +--rw type? enumeration | | +--rw value rt-types:mpls-label | +--rw fwd-items* [te-bp] | +--rw te-bp uint16 | +--rw bp-type? enumeration // BEN2 BEN2// Fwd-items need not have bp-type. I think there is no use of this field in forwarding. Can this be removed ? [Sandy] It is inherent from the adjacency's BP. If the router is total controlled by controller, the forwarding table can be delivered to router directly with no per adjacency BP configuration. So IMO it can be showed here though it may not be used in forwarding. [BEN] I feel, whether or not router is controlled by the controller, it is not correct to have bp-type under fwd-items. It is also redundant with “sd/te-adj-id/si/adj/bp-type”. Can be retained as a read only node, for display purpose. But, I feel not correct to have it as a write node per bit position(same reasoning as BEN1) [Sandy2] OK. The deletion of bp-type is easy. | +--rw (fwd-type) | | +--:(connected) | | +--:(routed) | | +--:(local-decap) | | +--:(other) | +--rw dnr-flag? boolean | +--rw out-info //BEN3 BEN3// “Section 3.6. Requirements” of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-01: “BIER-TE forwarding MAY support more than one adjacency on a bit and ECMP adjacencies.” It is advantageous to have a single bit position mapped to more than one adjacency. So the fields like out-info, fwd-type, dnr-flag etc need to be grouped to a container, and there can be a list of this container under te-bp. [Sandy] I agree with you that in some circumstances the same BP can be used for multiple links. IMO the simplest modification is that change the leaf "out-info" to list, like out-info [if-index]. How do you think about it? [BEN] Assume a case like below, for example SD=1, BSL=256, SI=0, fwd-items[te-bp=1, out-if=x, [fwd-type=connected, dnr-flag=1...]] fwd-items[te-bp=1, out-if=y, [fwd-type=local_decap, dnr-flag=0...]] So, I think not only we should make out-if to list, but also move the adjacency related fields under out-if, instead of te-bp, so that it will be more flexible. [Sandy2] Got it. I have a question: If this situration exist that different fwd-types are used by a te-bp? For example, in the situration that every BFER is assigned a same BP, the fwd-type is same with local_decap and can not be others. Right? | | +--rw fwd-intf if:interface-ref | | +--rw te-out-bift-id | | +--rw type? enumeration | | +--rw value rt-types:mpls-label | +--rw te-frr {bier-te-frr}? | | +--rw frr-index? uint16 | | +--rw resetbitmask* [bitmask] | | +--rw bitmask bit-string | +--rw te-ecmp* [out-if] {bier-te-ecmp}? | +--rw out-if if:interface-ref | +--rw te-out-bift-id | +--rw type? enumeration | +--rw value rt-types:mpls-label Thanks Benjamin R VRP PDU, Network Business Line Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield Bengaluru-560066, Karnataka Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext II Mob: 8123906320 Email: benjamin.r@huawei.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
- [Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang benjamin r
- Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang benjamin r
- Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] Questions on draft-zhang-bier-te-yang benjamin r