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 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0463126D85; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:15:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 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, 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 2L-pPIthCkmO; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:15:32 -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 098DB1241F3; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:15:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=940; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519089332; x=1520298932; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=gX+pR2vEw0bS72fj9OPCLNLedEK5StEaDn6BHkYm+GM=; b=htrfhdnLyBUTQ2h5qj7tsejGHgyuSJcMs7qdXj1yPdIqTLLxcfym/zcz iPYKbz3jv3M9sswsyOrRtAkFylpbaHDUliP35v3XNVTP3kBgtOM8VlZhq PNE6V0iXBOKOBFpbhWGhRL9g1Oz8Pbf48kvBt6G/Ry5V9WP5j6mPDO0Io g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,537,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="73080599"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Feb 2018 01:15:31 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1K1FTB9028228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 01:15:30 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:15:29 -0800
Cc: BIER WG <>, " list" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 01:15:34 -0000


> An architectural argument can't also limit itself to the drafts in the title.
> If it sounded like the IANA registry was suggested as separate for BIER OSPF  and BIER ISIS, then your attempt to reframe the conversation might be reasonable.  Let me clarify - I see no current reason for an OSPF BAR registry and an ISIS BAR registry; it would just be a BAR registry.  Perhaps
> that clarification is a good reason to get the IANA registry included in the next update?

There is no reason for an individual BIER OSPF and BIER ISIS registry. The point is to align with what ever ISIS and OSPF are using to identify the algorithm.

> The routing layer is separate from the BIER layer.  The BAR is for the BIER layer.

The underlay is separate from the BIER layer, and each underlay can carry BIER specific information that is needed for for BIER to make the selection.