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

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Mon, 12 February 2018 14:55 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 05E0F126CB6; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:55:14 -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 BjGQ2Lt8nmPh; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:55:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F3FD126D0C; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 06:55:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20897; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518447309; x=1519656909; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kOfWJlpayr7AM+u8vG7TZTVdbyUn+HBKr0v5A8kStDs=; b=A+jEuh6p6WiG0Dor5BNxx3UYi6m/bZl/RyHfd6p0yuh0np32Q282rVMd eT0Mu0xTCgh3HKKpF39KUmO2yZhF04HJaWH6x5UPZxxazxvqXUFCTS+Xd wA6iyI1CNk4i5wlTlQMFT0U0wAYl0kAiE1kkhdUYa8Bn0zo6PJ9MACkq1 M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,501,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="1968743"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2018 14:55:07 +0000
Received: from [10.147.24.31] ([10.147.24.31]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1CEt5Eu030862; Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:55:06 GMT
Message-ID: <5A81AACA.3080409@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:55:06 +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>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
CC: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hNrQV+gyQS_ts-38w2OWYOkTXUy-Q3b0FAGKaztE8D+QQ@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/XCnvDZiIz1H27lYklc7Qbk1IjNg>
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 14:55:14 -0000

Hi Tony,

On 09/02/18 20:04 , Tony Przygienda 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,

that has been removed already and is NOT anymore in the published 
version 10.

thanks,
Peter



> 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
>