Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 12 February 2018 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.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 1C6E4126CB6; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:58:58 -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 B7bjviov7PwP; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65AF4129511; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:58:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=26429; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518447534; x=1519657134; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a8fwGbS01cUNdyiUPXUs68ahiVBKJVqMLPSfUIIj+0o=; b=Gn2F2bu2hkCkDXS3b9pmhtQrqGUjIBYBaDBiAOOhGNGr8cxD1KHovkdP WnuLZ2IysWdNeOg7Vi1ZOENSrm4Mm4O9sEpNi4p+BJqvLJrMh307PJLgn ZW1gMwgaPm9JZBLBdU97Oj0afqE64H9stMFRV9ER+PQ9q51m0kFKOOsHa o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,501,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="2022750"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2018 14:58:52 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.31] ([10.147.24.31]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1CEwpxL023652; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:58:52 GMT
Message-ID: <5A81ABAC.107@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:58:52 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
CC: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at)" <hannes@gredler.at>
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> <CABFReBqEJu5nBMdJm0cmBuUYhatD+JRCpn7TppC-hgV4HGZ3sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hNOf=UZja29OVDGWJMvULoyJP7Uj_OnZYVakNiX0-59Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4d1rcZnZmbfU3AnLgfCJmOz-dJ0uv8VUZE+BQ9Qq3B=7DgZg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hNrQV+gyQS_ts-38w2OWYOkTXUy-Q3b0FAGKaztE8D+QQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABFReBoWZeQxnOCERr9EVykE5dY8p04KQT=JsDqk2eN2Q9p_2g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+wi2hPtxa_Z7VS6Hnj5Y4iQG3RUx7GP6exkf9o4ZcQr2eU_ig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hPtxa_Z7VS6Hnj5Y4iQG3RUx7GP6exkf9o4ZcQr2eU_ig@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/CPbU85adjo7pYM8MLPxC9oOq4rk>
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: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:58:58 -0000

Hi Tony,

OSPF does not have the original text, so it does not need the new one.

IMHO, the text in section 5 of ISIS BIER draft suits better to the BIER 
architecture draft than to the IGP extension draft.

thanks,
Peter


On 09/02/18 20:17 , Tony Przygienda wrote:
> Sure ;-)  let me ping Peter @ the bottom then ... I don't think any of
> the stuff applies to OSPF (was ISIS nits) except we can consider an
> encaps paragraph. We basically suggest both to replace in ISIS the
> encaps section like this
>
> before:
>
> "
>     All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise the
>     same encapsulation for a given <MT,SD>.  A router discovering
>     encapsulation advertised that is different from its own MUST report a
>     misconfiguration of a specific <MT,SD>.  All received BIER
>     advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be
>     ignored.
>
> "
>
> now
>
> "
>
>     Multiple encapsulations MAY be advertised/supported for a given
>     <MT,SD>.  Clearly, however, there MUST be at least one encapsulation
>     type in common in order for a BIER encapsulated packet to be
>     successfully forwarded between two BFRs.
>
> "
>
> I do think that OSPF would benefit from adding this section to clarify
> the issue which is not theoretical now that we have Ethernet.
>
>
> So Peter, any ETA on outstanding OSPF nits now that we're tying up the
> IETF LC?
>
> thanks
>
> --- tony
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com
> <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     No I didn't. Why would I? These are the changes you and Les worked
>     out. I assumed you'd share them as needed. If for some reason you're
>     uncomfortable engaging with the OSPF draft thread and authors with
>     your proposed changes, let me know and I'll broker the conversation.
>
>     Greg
>
>     On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Tony Przygienda
>     <tonysietf@gmail.com <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Les has the diff, I'd expect him to publish any minute to the
>         list ... The encaps was a real defect, the rest is just
>         tightening down the language/spec where it was too loose/too
>         strict.
>
>         OSPF still needs update with conversion TLV removed, same
>         paragraph on encaps could be useful. I hope Greg pinged Peter ...
>
>         thanks
>
>         tony
>
>         On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com
>         <mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda
>             <tonysietf@gmail.com <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Went last nits with Les, we found one issue (encaps
>                 section was wrong, need to look @ OSPF as well) and
>                 basically tightened language in few places.
>
>
>             K - please get that  out with the details of changes to the
>             list.  I did my AD review back in Oct and looked at the
>             differences before issuing
>             IETF Last Call.
>
>             I look forward to reviewing the minor changes.
>
>             Regards,
>             Alia
>
>                 tony
>
>                 On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Greg Shepherd
>                 <gjshep@gmail.com <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                     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
>                     <mailto: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
>                         <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>]
>                         *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:23 AM
>                         *To:* Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de
>                         <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>>
>                         *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>                         <ginsberg@cisco.com
>                         <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>>; Tony Przygienda
>                         <tonysietf@gmail.com
>                         <mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>; Hannes Gredler
>                         (hannes@gredler.at <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>)
>                         <hannes@gredler.at <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>>;
>                         bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>;
>                         isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list
>                         <isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>;
>                         Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org
>                         <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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
>                             <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>); Greg Shepherd;
>                              > > bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>;
>                             isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto: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-
>                             <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier->
>                              > > ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt Section
>                             2.5<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
>                             <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
>                             <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
>                             <mailto:hannes@gredler.at>); Greg Shepherd;
>                             bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>;
>                              > > > isis-wg@ietf.org
>                             <mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto:BIER@ietf.org
>                             <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>>
>                              > > >
>                             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>                             <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 <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>____
>
>                         __ __
>
>
>
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 BIER mailing list
>                 BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>                 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>