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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 01 February 2018 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@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 C556512EB69; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:26:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.529 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 N-dHysA036Tk; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:26:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48C9E12711B; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:26:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=42312; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1517498768; x=1518708368; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=+gqe7XwgthJrkx/lTrpZRFiNzITTX1FtdGw+cMGWwSY=; b=EDiiZQQ8EoDyLTocKWLPCEIQtHPQ1kTNpRE0YbinV2adpubhYkQR27DC nUu+IlBz3eTytTQR0KBQvqfYlVnPkSFPKCPouFt1rmRUyZZggdSTS0BBH 0P7VJhCGJw0d8PLDNrPRjM13p/kThtBdM89dee/5/TlZNM9AUu4CW7Noy w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DYAQCFMHNa/5RdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJKeGZ1KAqDVphSggKJE45KggIKGAEKhRgCGoIXVxUBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQJrKIUjAQEBAwEBASEEBkELDAQCAQgRAQMBAQEgBwMCAgIfBgsUAwYIAgQBD?= =?us-ascii?q?QUIiUlMAw0IEKsYgW06hzsNgyYBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYRnghW?= =?us-ascii?q?BV4FnAYIggQ6Ca0QBAQKBSAEOPhCCYYJlBZlnNYlJPgKQZoR9gieKOodZjjCJD?= =?us-ascii?q?gIRGQGBOwE1I4FQcBU9giqCVRyCBniJfgEBJQeBBoEXAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,444,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="64900892"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Feb 2018 15:26:06 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w11FQ6tE001915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:26:06 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:26:06 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:26:06 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
CC: 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>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
Thread-Index: AQHTm0avcTYT1onfc0WukqSm8fbGxKOPqgSw
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:26:06 +0000
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBpt088=SC3eBcfFbJ24e_+GkDmvKh05AaQtUmCoaKEG3w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.131.0]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_cd2bcf2853684097a3d21fd20742d4edXCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/O9drEqIUxTjG3JnFPFIB6eqiOTA>
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 15:26:12 -0000

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>om>; Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>om>; Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at) <hannes@gredler.at>at>; bier@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org list <isis-wg@ietf.org>rg>; 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<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-
> > 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<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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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>