Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

IJsbrand Wijnands <> Tue, 20 February 2018 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20B81241FC; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:03:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lQ0n4oQNRst0; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:03:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6624F120227; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:03:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=72800; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519085013; x=1520294613; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=zIj75bpvrGF/3xilJpz/TiC4UvnhjaoOIOCpDKKOgdY=; b=hw8N07dKD5YharAaw9vQjFAu88Ed3xwpRzSeM81JfZ5CKpjj+Ng54sts fOLFuLxDur3IgfYRUwrKhaP2iUoQS6Q6PbffUoTECpLEkA8AGqQffM7Oi sZYc/DqZkC/QBI1ge/uDIqkW5P9Jj34dsuHF0G0xj1xnR+x4XXcDY/7im Y=;
X-Files: PastedGraphic-6.png : 43631
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D5AAC/ZIta/4gNJK1RChkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGDIi1GIHAog2eKJY4FQgEBAQEBAQaBDSeBF4d/iG6FXBSBfwM?= =?us-ascii?q?HAQIYAQxahDwCgltUGAECAQEBAQEBAmsohSMBAQEDAQEBAx5IAwsFCwsOCgUBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEiAgICFQEJBQEwBhIBBooEAwgFCBC1ToInhQGCOg2BMoITAQEBAQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBDgoFhQuCKIEPgi8BKQyCeYJsRAEBAoE8AQcLAYM2MYI0BZNok?= =?us-ascii?q?Bg1CYcfhQ2EU4ULgiCGKot9jk6GA4MhAgQLAhkBgTwfOWBxTSMVOioBghg+gkt?= =?us-ascii?q?xAQeBFSA3AYskgj4BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,537,1511827200"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="356200348"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Feb 2018 00:03:31 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1K03Ui4014739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:03:31 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9F9E5848-B71C-4AF2-BF59-B0B89B4DE70C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:03:29 -0800
Cc: BIER WG <>, " list" <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Alia Atlas <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:03:37 -0000

Hi Alia,

There is one more option that I think is not fully covered from the choice of options related to getting a registry.

The topic of the discussion is what information we need to pass in the IGP in order for BIER to select the correct underlay. What identifies the underlay is really what ever information is needed to select the Table (MT-ID) and Algorithm. An example of Algorithm work that is going on is Flex-Algo. My preferred option is to align with what ever the IGPs are using to identify the Algorithm.

Option E: Change BAR into “IGP Algorithm” registry as documented in



> On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:51, Alia Atlas <> wrote:
> As the Sponsoring AD for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions-12, I have been following the discussion on the mailing list with interest.
> I have not seen clear consensus for any change.
> Let me be clear on what I see the options are from the discussion.  Then I'll elaborate
> a bit on how you can express your perspective most usefully.
> 1) Current Status:  Bier Algorithm (BAR) field is 8 bits.  Currently, only value 0 is specified.  The drafts do not have an IANA registry - with the expectation that one will be created when the first additional use is clear.  It is possible that there will be objections from the IESG to progressing without an IANA registry.  Given the lack of clarity for future use-cases and after discussion, I decided not to force one after my AD review - but I will not push back against having a BIER IANA registry if raised by others.
> 2) Option B:  Add a BAR sub-type of 8 bits.  This would modify the current TLVs.
>    Define an IANA registry for the BAR type.  The meaning of the BAR sub-type derives 
>    from the BAR type.   We can debate over the registration policy for the BAR type.
> 3) Option C: Change the BAR field to be 16 bits and define an IANA registry.  Part of the range can be FCFS with Expert Review, part can be Specification Required, and part can be IETF Consensus.
> 4) Option D: At some point in the future, if there is an actual understood and documented need, a BAR sub-type could be added a sub-TLV.  The length of the BAR sub-type could be determined when the sub-TLV is defined.
> Given
>   a) option D exists 
>   b) there is currently only one defined value for BAR
>   c) I do not see strong consensus for change to one particular other option
> I see no current reason for a change and I certainly see absolutely no reason for
> a delay in progressing the documents.
> I do want to be clear about what the WG wants to do on this issue.  Therefore, here is
> my following request.
> Please send your feedback to the mailing list as follows:
> IF you prefer or can accept the current status, please say so.  No more justification
> or reasoning is required. I just don't want the bulk of folks who are content to be
> overlooked by those suggesting change.
> IF you prefer or can accept the current status, but think there should be an IANA registry
> as is usual for managing code-points, please say so.  No more justification is needed.
> IF you prefer Option B, C, and/or D, please say so with your explanation.  More technical depth than "'we might need it" would be helpful; the availability of sub-TLVs already
> provides future proofing.
> IF you have a clear technical objection to why the Current Status is not acceptable,
> please express that - with clear details.
> IF you feel that additional code-points should be allocated in a BAR IANA Registry or
> have thoughts on the appropriate policy, please say so with your explanation for what
> those should be.
> Unless I see clear and strong consensus for something other than the Current Status,
> that will remain.
> IF there is clear and strong consensus for Option B, C, or D, or adding an IANA registry with particular values, then it will be possible to have a change up through this Weds night - with a 1 week WGLC on that particular technical change.
> My priority is to have the base BIER specifications published as Proposed Standards so that more BIER implementations and deployment can be done.  I would like the WG to wrap up the core work (as expressed in the proposed recharter) so that you all can look
> at how to use it.
> Given this topic was raised last Weds and given that there are no technical objections raised to the documents as are, there isn't much time - so please just respond to this email ASAP.  My deadline for a decision is 6pm EST on Weds.
> Regards,
> Alia
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list