Re: [OSPF] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

The example is correct even under the assumption label values  L1-L11 are
ordered.  Encoding says for subdomain label range encodings in 2.2:

It MAY appear multiple times in the BIER Sub-TLV.

That aligns as well with the conceptual model I sent out ...

ISIS and OSPF encodings are 100% alligned ...

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
> I’m not saying they that BSL 256 and 512 bit strings would share any
> labels. What I’m saying is that the OSPF encoding (didn’t look at IS-IS)
> doesn’t allow them to share the same label range yet the example in the
> MPLS encapsulation draft implies that they are interleaved by SD in the
> same label range. Here is the second example:
>
>
>       L1:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0.
>
>       L2:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1.
>
>       L3:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2.
>
>       L4:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3.
>
>       L5:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0.
>
>       L6:   corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1.
>
>       L7:   corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 0.
>
>       L8:   corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 1.
>
>       L9:   corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 2.
>
>       L10:  corresponding to SD 1, BSL 256, SI 3.
>
>       L11:  corresponding to SD 1, BSL 512, SI 0.
>
>       L12:  corresponding to SD 1, BSL 512, SI 1.
>
> Note that they are ordered by SD – not BSL. However, that the OSPF
> encoding is BSL specific. So, a label range would only include the SD/SI
> labels for a single BSL.
>
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |              Type             |             Length            |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |Lbl Range Size |                Label Range Base               |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    | BS Length |                    Reserved                       |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> I think the example should be updated to match the protocol encoding.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
> Date: Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM
> To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
> Cc: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>,
> OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
>
> Acee, can you refer to more specific section in  https://www.ietf.org/id/
> <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt>dr
> aft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt
> <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt>
> <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt> ? I
> don't think that it is assumed that BSL 256 and 512 in the same subdomain
> would ever share labels ...  I sent the conceptual model on the AD review
> for -architecture that all drafts follow (as far I understood/helped
> writing them) ...
>
> --- tony
>
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg, Authors,
>>
>> I support publication. Also, I have two comments.
>>
>>    1. It is somewhat strange to make protocol drafts standards track
>> while the architecture and encapsulations are experimental.
>>    2. The OSPF encoding will not support the second example in
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07.txt. In
>> this example, the BSL 256 and 512 are intermixed. While with the encoding,
>> they would need to be two separate ranges of labels.
>>
>> I also have some editorial comments but I’ll just pass them to the
>> authors.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Greg Shepherd <
>> gjshep@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:34 PM
>> To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
>>
>> BIER, OSPF
>>
>> At BIER WG meeting, IETF97 in Chicago, we decided to move forward to WGLC for
>> some of our docs. We learned that even once published the IESG has a
>> process to change the track of the RFC if the WG makes the case to move the
>> work from Informational to Standards track. The feedback from operators is
>> that RFC status was more important than track, and we won't be able to meet
>> our charter requirements to change track without deployment experience and
>> operator support.
>>
>> This email starts a two week timer for feedback on the draft:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions/
>>
>> WGLC to run in parallel in both BIER and OSPF WGs due to the scope of the
>> work.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Greg
>> (BIER Chairs)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BIER mailing list
>> 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
>
>

-- 
*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