Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 20:03 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 065751243F6; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:03:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, 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 Tcw7oUhbZmMd; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5061D12420B; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:03:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6435; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519157022; x=1520366622; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pKRUzMzegxS3BsnQ33ZpV7BYVUGG8bvdS4dbBaW5tug=; b=YChfhA2C7fzZ2NOrYvWe+RreY0IKnMLRJ01XXDMhf35yqIH7f+HaL2s1 5kTUVijuUxTaA35j42zf8Z17zPCgy76G9stBvczPwFK3zSTZEke8XK4z2 x1hYM1UpNUsSQ5vkBsVJaU6NR8Aa6ir6jPqQKDowmcSrPkgksFQFT0UWB E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BzAQCyfoxa/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYQ1cCiDaIsZjxWBF5ZJFIICChgLhRgCg0EXAQIBAQEBAQECayiFIwEBAQMBAQEhFTMDCgEQCw4KAgIFFggDAgIJAwIBAgEVHxEGDQEFAgEBihcIEKxJghUShQKDe4ITAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBD4N/g3+BaIMugzABAYE+ARIBgzaCZQEEpDUJlgqCIIYqg3KIC5gfgTwhAjVgcTMaCBsVOoJDgwmBbkA3il+CPgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,541,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="2142638"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Feb 2018 20:03:40 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.58] (ams-ppsenak-nitro9.cisco.com [10.60.140.58]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1KK3duD006807; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 20:03:39 GMT
Message-ID: <5A8C7F1B.7040309@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:03:39 +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: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
CC: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
References: <CAG4d1remdUKutEdc2DU6Gaan3z63CAZVo1D-L0GXg_=eHJxffw@mail.gmail.com> <5A8C5A99.8090201@cisco.com> <CAG4d1rcVnmjisMxX0tJRrhQnWc_ZsGn0c4mXPFygo7RSRqtM2g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1rcVnmjisMxX0tJRrhQnWc_ZsGn0c4mXPFygo7RSRqtM2g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/t-Bmb6niZwVtoVqsb0zneOfABxw>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
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, 20 Feb 2018 20:03:45 -0000
Hi Alia, On 20/02/18 18:35 , Alia Atlas wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks very much for the feedback. > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com > <mailto:ppsenak@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Hi Alia, > > 1. I see a benefit in having the BIER a way to map to any of the IGP > algorithms. Simply because IGPs already provide paths to all nodes > in the domain and BIER can simply use these paths instead of > computing its own. > > > Makes sense. > > 2. Not sure if people plan to deploy the BIER in a model where it > does its own topology related computations, independent of IGPs. If > they do, I'm not objecting that. > > > That is what I'm hearing as a requirement. > > The encoding of the BAR though must be done in a way that it easily > supports both (1) and (2). > > > There's the rub :-) The challenge seems to be when there are > BIER-specific constraints and also other more generic constraints. we should be able to say BIER BAR X means (1) or (2), not both. thanks, Peter > > Regards, > Alia > > my 2c, > Peter > > > > > On 19/02/18 22:51 , Alia Atlas wrote: > > As the Sponsoring AD for draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-07 and > draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions-12, I have been following the > discussion > on the mailing list with interest. > > I have not seen clear consensus for any change. > > Let me be clear on what I see the options are from the > discussion. Then > I'll elaborate > a bit on how you can express your perspective most usefully. > > 1) Current Status: Bier Algorithm (BAR) field is 8 bits. > Currently, > only value 0 is specified. The drafts do not have an IANA > registry - > with the expectation that one will be created when the first > additional > use is clear. It is possible that there will be objections from the > IESG to progressing without an IANA registry. Given the lack of > clarity > for future use-cases and after discussion, I decided not to > force one > after my AD review - but I will not push back against having a > BIER IANA > registry if raised by others. > > 2) Option B: Add a BAR sub-type of 8 bits. This would modify the > current TLVs. > Define an IANA registry for the BAR type. The meaning of > the BAR > sub-type derives > from the BAR type. We can debate over the registration > policy for > the BAR type. > > 3) Option C: Change the BAR field to be 16 bits and define an IANA > registry. Part of the range can be FCFS with Expert Review, > part can be > Specification Required, and part can be IETF Consensus. > > 4) Option D: At some point in the future, if there is an actual > understood and documented need, a BAR sub-type could be added a > sub-TLV. The length of the BAR sub-type could be determined > when the > sub-TLV is defined. > > Given > > a) option D exists > b) there is currently only one defined value for BAR > c) I do not see strong consensus for change to one > particular other > option > > I see no current reason for a change and I certainly see > absolutely no > reason for > a delay in progressing the documents. > > I do want to be clear about what the WG wants to do on this issue. > Therefore, here is > my following request. > > Please send your feedback to the mailing list as follows: > > IF you prefer or can accept the current status, please say so. > No more > justification > or reasoning is required. I just don't want the bulk of folks > who are > content to be > overlooked by those suggesting change. > > IF you prefer or can accept the current status, but think there > should > be an IANA registry > as is usual for managing code-points, please say so. No more > justification is needed. > > IF you prefer Option B, C, and/or D, please say so with your > explanation. More technical depth than "'we might need it" would be > helpful; the availability of sub-TLVs already > provides future proofing. > > IF you have a clear technical objection to why the Current > Status is not > acceptable, > please express that - with clear details. > > IF you feel that additional code-points should be allocated in a BAR > IANA Registry or > have thoughts on the appropriate policy, please say so with your > explanation for what > those should be. > > Unless I see clear and strong consensus for something other than the > Current Status, > that will remain. > > IF there is clear and strong consensus for Option B, C, or D, or > adding > an IANA registry with particular values, then it will be possible to > have a change up through this Weds night - with a 1 week WGLC on > that > particular technical change. > > My priority is to have the base BIER specifications published as > Proposed Standards so that more BIER implementations and > deployment can > be done. I would like the WG to wrap up the core work (as > expressed in > the proposed recharter) so that you all can look > at how to use it. > > Given this topic was raised last Weds and given that there are no > technical objections raised to the documents as are, there isn't > much > time - so please just respond to this email ASAP. My deadline for a > decision is 6pm EST on Weds. > > Regards, > Alia > > > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier> > > >
- [Isis-wg] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isi… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Senthil Dhanaraj
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Senthil Dhanaraj
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG/Singapore)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… arkadiy.gulko
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Xiejingrong
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ie… Tony Przygienda