Re: [Isis-wg] [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Wed, 21 February 2018 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.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 EB9231243F3; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 01:39:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.662
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qnSZ11iwIK-W; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 01:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA54D12E890; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 01:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id F33EC2AC297B4; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:39:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:39:34 +0000
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:39:27 +0800
From: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org list" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions
Thread-Index: AQHTqcvQsj/7fX8v+kCKmu+1cTkA0KOunCLI
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:39:27 +0000
Message-ID: 70804609-86D0-498F-A692-64A37DEF4E78
References: <CAG4d1remdUKutEdc2DU6Gaan3z63CAZVo1D-L0GXg_=eHJxffw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1remdUKutEdc2DU6Gaan3z63CAZVo1D-L0GXg_=eHJxffw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7080460986D0498FA69264A37DEF4E78_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/ujnEyno7Nx6lJ5KrHSnPI1AoF4Q>
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: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:39:40 -0000

I vote for D. The reason is the following:
(1) 8 bit is enough currently.
(2) 16 bits is not enough, considering parameters for a algorithm. For example, IMO, I need one or more IP address(es) as parameters of a Algorithm.
(3) Do Unicast Algorithms natually fit to BIER? I am not sure. considering the following:
(3.1) BIER with non-MPLS encapsulation may not be able to run over a Label-Switch-Path, but Unicast can.
(3.2) Thinking a Unicast Algorithm named "over a RSVP-TE tunnel (shortcut tunnel)".
(4) Even if some unicast algorithms can be supported by BIER, do they need to be reviewed by BIER before vendors implement ?
(4.1) There is 0 and 1 algorithm defined in SR, should they be supported by BIER now ? or after being reviewed and sure and assigned a BAR value by BIER-WG ?
(4.2) If a new Unicast Algorithm is created, should it be supported by BIER right now ?

My suggestions:
(1) BAR field in OSPF/ISIS draft is BIER specific. Current 8 bit is enough.
(2) Unicast Algorithms should be reviewed by BIER WG and assigned a BAR value before it is used.
(3) We can apply for a value named "BIER Reserved" in IGP Algorithm registery, to be sure it is not used for any Unicast Algorithm, and then we can do a 1:1 map from Unicast Algorithm to BIER BAR, if the unicast algorithm is reviewed by BIER WG.




--------------------------------------------------
XieJingrong
发件人:Alia Atlas
收件人:BIER WG,isis-wg@ietf.org list,
时间:2018-02-20 05:51:36
主 题:[Bier] BAR field length in draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions and draft-ietf-bier-ospf-extensions

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