Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Tue, 06 February 2018 23:45 UTC
Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FF312DA1A; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Ry_5j2WbSUAt; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DF0A12DA4D; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id t22so4489ioa.7; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 15:45:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=lRow/TiNAoJxEhGtvgaD/96+JQeRtqmrp4214uuXOg4=; b=G9ZqLIROPUsaXLqAMFbSZhliIUOLkRBonqxnHqh+ttr84oP9Ug7wCpErBB0nhyWvZH hh9TKod2ohkI/q8JeAlRRWwMpf6xwmMjsYgK/tYl9QnwuuT8qgM98urn+/HxbVbEmSIH orDZ1kcxnNr9qM9Hr8LAuosY65ok8xP27fhZnwQgN00YyUjvAF5ykAId6gDrKD+K6xT+ SWUYxt1uHWuBq9wYQfERK+uzp7qbWKa61IuiIoPfLUkHtgqn9EpdhORqi2h0HwbYfOeq /0hbt7tQgUShfy+Y2wdTSdTyKJpMlsYwcUQzvrq9o2p/ZnhIpsXwbnr4pZEOjDIMky60 7ktQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lRow/TiNAoJxEhGtvgaD/96+JQeRtqmrp4214uuXOg4=; b=DpAWz/slDBYWiMuPSAMTJhKe+20NL33cLuBSrO74DvGULJ/wBEOuMzlFWM7d/Ch2R5 FZL02qLy4d+bFStPOHLushWdNln2usXCUU5wiFALndg23EZHxah9c8Z7JPAZQHqaLhDj eu8+WmiZyddvZnmp+NnoNWGsa5O9tmfQ7HxiUsuurvz1/UQ/Ge/R9EbjpIO+TPOIvG4k L+wPGWrRd6eG0IXxS+NSSC7NH0tj9jXaN/T5+dsCy2BPWwtB/KwgGtpURJLVRZGrCMHW uqfoIHpKHMaa/7HG3Q3c4LLUw5GcQmbnUlDYsq6W7GCGX5nfRnPsjtFu7BqTd+HVvnHC e7uA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCXjSR5PnTqxQVLmNZvC2plfuQrObQtfxSr9NhptPRNGVaOVLdi PhFZzmpiuuFPm+0KCb7zhIi4vdLWLqsB9ORYrS4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225PSDvBzosH6y4mNR+rukNKlex4cTnSq0X+HSgryJsCMelsdYVRgkOp5WrGGxGSS+pRLchhf0NEWvpQTyv1U3g=
X-Received: by 10.107.174.196 with SMTP id n65mr5302216ioo.256.1517960702788; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 15:45:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.2.73.76 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:45:02 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <cd2bcf2853684097a3d21fd20742d4ed@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <20170721062741.GA3215@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CA+wi2hOCZkLeuqnqr-waNMtaex+Pjq3rXzH-HVqJhLkWQUgj_Q@mail.gmail.com> <567fdbe4992c4207b54c77b1ec8cd0cd@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20170722133419.GA18218@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <37e324dc58454778b70c72255066536f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <20170725195211.GA7411@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CABFReBpt088=SC3eBcfFbJ24e_+GkDmvKh05AaQtUmCoaKEG3w@mail.gmail.com> <cd2bcf2853684097a3d21fd20742d4ed@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 15:45:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CABFReBqEJu5nBMdJm0cmBuUYhatD+JRCpn7TppC-hgV4HGZ3sQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, "Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at)" <hannes@gredler.at>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11445fb4790a61056493c495"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/6HydxknNmYgqrGCwZa0ll_U9FpQ>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:45:08 -0000
Thanks Les. Any other feedback? Looks like the concerns have been addressed. Speak now. Cheers, Greg On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com> wrote: > Greg – > > > > This thread is outdated. > > In V6 of the draft we removed the restriction to limit IS-IS BIER support > to area boundaries – so Toerless’s comment (and my proposed text) are no > longer relevant. > > > > Specifically: > > > > Section 4.1: > > > > “At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER domain/sub-domain > is > > limited to a single area - or to the IS-IS L2 > sub-domain.” > > > > The above text was removed. > > > > Section 4.2 > > > > o BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when a prefix reachability > > advertisement is leaked between levels. > > > > Was changed to > > > > o BIER sub-TLVs MUST be included when a prefix reachability > > advertisement is leaked between levels. > > > > This aligns IS-IS and OSPF drafts in this regard. > > > > Les > > > > *From:* Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:23 AM > *To:* Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> > *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Tony Przygienda < > tonysietf@gmail.com>; Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at) < > hannes@gredler.at>; bier@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org list <isis-wg@ietf.org>; > Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > > > Have these changes been reflected in the draft? We're in WGLC but this > discussion needs to come to a conclusion so we can progress. > > > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote: > > Thanks, Less, that would be lovely! > > I didn't check the OSPF draft, if its similar state, explanatory text wold > equally be appreciated. > > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:28:08PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > Toerless - > > > > I am thinking to add a statement in Section 4.1 - something like: > > > > "At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER domain/sub-domain is limited > to a single area - or to the IS-IS L2 sub-domain." > > > > If you believe this would be helpful I will spin a new version (subject > to review/agreement from my co-authors). > > > > Les > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Toerless Eckert [mailto:tte@cs.fau.de] > > > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:34 AM > > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > > Cc: Tony Przygienda; Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at); Greg > Shepherd; > > > bier@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org list; Christian Hopps > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > > > > > Thanks Les > > > > > > When searching various terms in the doc to figure out what happens i > am not > > > sure why i missed this one. > > > > > > But: IMHO, RFCs can not only be the minimum number of words to get a > > > running implementation. It also needs to specify what this > implementation > > > intends to achieve. Otherwise its not possible to do a useful review: > > > The reviewer can to verify whether the spec will achieve what it > claims to > > > achieve is there no definitionn of what it claims to achieve. > > > > > > If i understand ISIS correctly, my reverse engineering of the intent > is: > > > > > > - BIER TLVs stay within single ISIS areas. BFIR and BFER must > therefore be > > > in the same ISIS area: There is no inter-area BIER traffic possible > > > with this specification. This is also true for ISIS area 0. > > > > > > - The same BIER sub-domain identifiers can be re-used > > > across different ISIS areas without any current impact. If these > BFR-IDs > > > are non-overlapping, then this would allow in the future to create a > single > > > cross ISIS area BIER sub-domain by leaking TLVs for such a BIER > sub-domain > > > across ISIS levels. Leakage is outside the scope of this > specificication. > > > > > > I actually even would like to do the following: > > > > > > - If BIER sub-domains are made to span multiple ISIS areas and BFR-ids > > > assignemtns > > > are made such that all BFR-ids with the same SI are in the same ISIS > ara, > > > then it should be in the future reasonably easy to create inter-area > BIER > > > not by leaking of the BIER TLV but by having BFIR MPLS unicastBIER > packets > > > for different SIs to an appropriate L2L1 BFIR that is part of the > destination > > > area/SI. > > > (if you would use SI number that are the same as ISIS area numbers > then > > > you could probably do this without any new signaling. Not quite > sure if > > > you can today easily find L1L2 border router for another area via > existing > > > TLVs). > > > > > > Alas, this idea will probably be killed because of the BIER > architecture > > > intent not to engineer SI assignments in geographical fashions to > > > minimize traffic duplication in the presence of multiple SIs. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Toerless > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:03:53AM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > wrote: > > > > Tony/Toerless ??? > > > > > > > > There is an explicit statement as to scope: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > Section 4.2 > > > > ??? > > > > o BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when a prefix reachability > > > > advertisement is leaked between levels. > > > > <end snip> > > > > > > > > Tony seems to have forgotten that we had a discussion about how BIER > > > might be supported across areas and the conclusion was we did not know > > > how to do that yet. > > > > (Sorry Tony) > > > > > > > > Note this is ???consistent??? with https://www.ietf.org/id/draft- > ietf-bier- > > > ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt Section 2.5<https://www.ietf.org/id/ > draft-ietf- > > > bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt%20Section%202.5> - which limits the > > > flooding scope of BIER information to a single area unless it can be > validated > > > that the best path to the prefix with BIER info can be validated to be > to a > > > router which itself advertised the BIER info. This is not something > IS-IS can do > > > since a single IS-IS instance only supports one area and therefore > does not > > > have the Level-1 advertisements of the originating router when that > router is > > > in another area. > > > > > > > > A few more responses inline. > > > > > > > > From: BIER [mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony > Przygienda > > > > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:17 AM > > > > To: Toerless Eckert > > > > Cc: Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at); Greg Shepherd; bier@ietf.org > ; > > > > isis-wg@ietf.org list; Christian Hopps > > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > > > > > > > Terminology is a bit nits IMO since the doc is reading clear enough > for > > > someone who read BIER & ISIS. I can reread it or Les can comment > whether > > > we should tighten glossary ... > > > > > > > > With the scope I agree, that got lost and the doc should be possibly > rev'ed > > > before closing LC. Yes, we flood AD wide was the agreement but > something > > > mentioning that this could change in the future is good so we are > forced to > > > give it some thought how that would transition ... > > > > > > > > Thinking further though, in ISIS we have a clean document really. > The BIER > > > sub-TLVs go into well defined TLVs in terms of flooding scope. Normal > L1-L2 > > > redistribution can be used to get the info to all needed places AFAIS. > So > > > maybe nothing needs to be written. I wait for Les to chime in. > > > > > > > > OSPF I would have to look @ scopes again & think whether we need to > > > write something or maybe Peter can comment ... > > > > > > > > --- tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Toerless Eckert > > > <tte@cs.fau.de<mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>> wrote: > > > > Sorry, past the two weeks, but hopefully benign textual comments: > > > > > > > > We tried to find an explicit statement about the scope of BIER TLVs > - eg: > > > > are they meant to stay within an area, have some redistribution > across > > > > areas/levels or not. > > > > > > > > Tony said WG agreement was to have these TLV be flooded across the > > > > whole ISIS domain for now (this draft). So an explicit statement to > that > > > effect would > > > > be great (All BIER sub-domains TLVs are flooded across all ISIS > areas/levels, > > > so they span the whole ISIS domain). > > > > > > > > Also, if future work may/should could improve on that maybe some > > > > sentence about that (i guess one could just have ISIS intra-area > BIER sub- > > > domains ?). > > > > > > > > Also: Do a check about possible ambiguity of any generic terms like > > > sub-domain, level, area, topology so that reader that don't know the > > > terminology ofall protocols (ISIS, BIER) by heart can easily know which > > > protocol is referred to. > > > > > > > > [Les:] There is no mention of ???level??? in the document. > > > > The use of ???sub-domain??? is clearly always associated with > ???BIER???. > > > > ???topology??? is always used as an RFC 5120 topology ??? therefore > > > clearly an IS-IS topology. > > > > There is only one use of the term ???area??? (in Section 5.1). That > text > > > might deserve a bit of clarification given this might be either a > Level 1 area or > > > the Level2 sub-domain. I???ll take a pass at it. > > > > (BTW ??? I am talking about IS-IS area/L2sub-domain Toerless. ???) > > > > > > > > I don???t see that any other clarification is needed ??? but > Toerless ??? if > > > you can point to any specific sentences/paragraphs which you find > confusing > > > - I???ll take a second look. > > > > > > > > Les > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess there are no BIER level, area or topologies, but still makes > > > > reading easier if the doc would say "ISIS level", "ISIS area", or at > > > > least have them in the Terminology section. And probably in > > > > terminology say "domain -> in the context of this document the BIER > > > domain which is also the same as the ISIS domain" > > > > (which i hope is the correct statement, see above). > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Toerless > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > BIER mailing list > > > > BIER@ietf.org<mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > We???ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could > > > produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, > > > we know that is not true. > > > > ???Robert Wilensky > > > > > > -- > > > --- > > > tte@cs.fau.de > > >
- [Isis-wg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-e… Xiejingrong