[Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-05
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 26 September 2017 23:09 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@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 7D0CE134499; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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] 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 5zYqF698LnnA; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (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 53CB413202D; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id m72so12598585wmc.1; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XMFJjiAeFHmH8hcn3QUGUsigL/tZeZ3VKuFBrzak85Q=; b=MpahHf6/7yK76hAL0+WDn0Qk0fG7W0/zFGAw5CbqMo1khxbxlhORZy9uRVd0Vjj3xr vCi8xr/bkmb2wi1ozqDA3+sjGTCmfQchMCwjSeiRPqC4B7aTMrn+IVznbDqQLZzWkII/ OChg12OtYQm9dVFe16Y4sA6HhxUor+Ees463ndYT9Lw8qNrLrYkIfKUKFMuPmXwOolcl jUma79Bld83wQEUhNtUMfLnJ6lXxPsf9Pri/Y5e4CgwQEhsl0EKS3vqZfbXoecGT30Dm 73F+zJ14OcFiK60RttUctjXULtEviYaBchJH46Ffaf5zs7j58rL84BvmsuI/OKSN102R qNug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XMFJjiAeFHmH8hcn3QUGUsigL/tZeZ3VKuFBrzak85Q=; b=B2PdP7Oefdmy1CQhmrtIuy+6kIlIt/tgw8lU6XPcOZr8msU4p/9srG3KNoGv9btzry uxdjJoGtaaskgF33CuvHOlQW2xdwQZSI0PeX2kJ6xGM+5mWCis0HbdCMwiBwQQrkzSfX Qs45JYFZ+kHQmHI2QBKy0zyFBlJzsiAVK6Ub5Jlovv1PXc3c815VXhMuMHecNJ+vY87p TvNybYCB03JlbNyOMDG+ZxQh+MJPJs470HAtB+94BWLOpA8jz0v5FXajigelkvLo/T15 PWquleDojvTzy94B2D7OauuatUNoxcvqUtpzibh1lp/UL/p70oTFEpWF99UUiOvwImXQ 4KVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhVi4rGboyrkrE7vdIs/D4O8+d01WikudvsqeypBh4nrMyDmuRb JtsBA0Smv3m/kBctegPbBKOfWuwSYVKejJq2jbjQI67N
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDD7AXP3JMoY5/qpO4asDit9Jf9edYxIbF5Z3iAoPrl1mXJTqKLUx3t5oeDMwZAyEoWvo9VHNi3SE6s6s8f03k=
X-Received: by 10.28.18.210 with SMTP id 201mr3896404wms.135.1506467351476; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.136.153 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:09:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcBQDVQBYJ3nu8S4t_u_90UaCBR_KYVErO=dwz=3KRFzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1145b02c59be6c055a1fc3e4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/plMVR_JcA5Y35LwttHTrMzEMVlM>
Subject: [Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-05
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, 26 Sep 2017 23:09:18 -0000
I have done an early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-05 in preparation for receiving a request to publish it. First, I would like to thank the authors - Les, Tony, Sam and Jeffrey - for their work on this document. In my ideal timing, this draft would be updated and ready for IETF Last Call by Oct 5 so that it could reach the IESG telechat on Oct 26 with draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions. It would be great to have 4 drafts approved for RFC publication - or even some RFCs! If we can't make this timeline, then it'll add at least a month or more. I do see a number of issues to be addressed. Major: 1) Sec 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." Why is there this limitation? Having just reviewed the ospf draft, the detail needed to handle inter-area seems straightforward there. It'd be a pity to have different support in ISIS and OSPF... I didn't see anything about such a limitation in the bier-architecture or bier-mpls-encapsulation drafts, so I'm startled to see it here. At the very least, some explanation of why IS-IS can't handle inter-area and the implications for deployments is needed. In Sec 4.2, this is enforced by "BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when a prefix reachability advertisement is leaked between levels." but I don't see any reasoning for why the BIER sub-TLVs couldn't be included... 2) Sec 5.1: This section has concern about restricting the advertisement of BIER information in IS-IS for scalability - but it doesn't discuss at all when a router would stop advertising the BIER sub-TLVs. It feels like the section is hunting for a bit of a manageability or operational considerations section. I'm not comfortable with the interoperability issues posed by not indicating what triggers should cause advertisements or withdrawals. Receiving an advertisement from a BFER seems like a reasonable trigger to me, since it indicates an active receiver for the <MT, SD>. 3) Sec 5.5 contradicts the last paragraph in Sec 2.1.1.1 in draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-08 which says" Note that in practice, labels only have to be assigned if they are going to be used. If a particular BIER domain supports BSLs 256 and 512, but some SD, say SD 1, only uses BSL 256, then it is not necessary to assign labels that correspond to the combination of SD 1 and BSL 512." 4) Sec 5.6: "A valid BFR-id MUST be unique within the flooding scope of the BIER advertisments." This doesn't leave scope for expanding to inter-area in the future because the issue is not the flooding scope but rather the distribution. 5) Sec 6.1: " The sub-TLV advertises a single <MT,SD> combination followed by optional sub-sub-TLVs as described in the following sections." The figure and field descriptions do not include the MT-ID. There is clearly the reserved octet intended for that?? 6) Sec 6.2: This section needs to clearly define the relationship between the labels and the Set Index in the specified <MT, SD>. It's also unclear whether it is better to advertise all the labels ever needed or be able to advertise only labels for a particular sequential number of SIs. The restriction that only one sub-sub-TLV with the same BitStringLength makes that impossible (but so does the lack of explicit starting SI). 7) Sec 6.3: The values for the Length & Tree Type field need to be clearer after the figure. Also, is Tree Type an IANA-managed field?? I don't see it in the IANA considerations. Ca it be different between IS-IS and OSPF? Minor: a) Sec 2: "Invalid BFR-id: Unassigned BFR-id, consisting of all 0s." A clearer definition might be "Invalid BFR-ID: The special value of 0 - used to indicate that there is not a valid BFR-ID" The same comment applies to "Invalid BMP". b) Sec 5.7: Please add some text about dampening the reports of misconfiguration - as usual. Nits: i) Sec 5.1: "supported bitstring lengths MLs " All the other BIER drafts use the acronym BSL (BitStringLength). Consistency is frequently useful for clarity. ii) Sec 6.2: "Length: 1 octet." Please specify the value! Regards, Alia
- Re: [Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-… Tony Przygienda
- [Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-isis… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-… Antoni Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] early AD review of draft-ietf-bier-… Antoni Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] early AD review of draft-iet… Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] early AD review of draft-iet… Alia Atlas