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

Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 June 2017 02:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tonysietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4652E126B6D; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 19:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 TFQNK0Kw1P9k; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 19:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 930A01200C5; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id x70so66454917wme.0; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Sd+l3SPdBE29czZwtZKK0/f4s6lFdHVRJURMLTi0u4U=; b=PMUhsx1drgtGuXiw0Hg2bWX6yyqnrGL9GhzmECCFw2Wjfrvc7vRq2KJvjFX+1jTSvo osCXHTnU8YBm+6yKuJmz864IrgYyroWiAXn9KCUMX1CtQ79ZXmIr7a72TzBcELVsm4qk v5azWR3j9dIwCeBOyrLkxi6DWP37k9D0BdYBbgjG8PZ2Pkd0Q061k9uqCdFHPC7IgPru ymAkIqzdeQO1kqYlfI+hnUEPGgWWZS0J2gs+QF83RQlu9TEcF3GeAjM0LLxsdcDJSb9t e1SRZbTWaPS3Vxzy9VZ/c6UgivPQMOinVRocglFdtguA/dBPush6847zQhw8R/GNS4TY Mmfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Sd+l3SPdBE29czZwtZKK0/f4s6lFdHVRJURMLTi0u4U=; b=rLB5miM03BGmcSc8VeIVAk2ZPrmkLQyw+yzYG3aCJJVOcBbbSFL25Eamla0RNhes/r ByAUWD09Is5qNHcKLIRgaBpDd1wBr+16sCnw4RZ7NzUQDgt+9v9BAbgTETrF0wQg7y7a SeziMQ1q+zigYm1d8R6gBEhNNVTr7CVIfrFxAFhgSklEVadiRwa4esiX71E+GNfwDPHk PaapbJSocxqO28tlx02LkmNHaRXROLTXHUAWk6OuoX9EDBvaE/GXgv75ZGTAdn7WSxyF RoLpY6IoYiT+iOUYiwrMpT90uHBk8WVBYY3Zw/3E224Lh/hRM+mZcv6aq3f176F+6EbE 0GtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOw85d3h02Z129G7vWZpz/mri8DBnUVEYs64xbdYmJBN9eYC2LRZ 9leWfVfCtxVi2fO5I6IsT2GREPZu1g==
X-Received: by 10.80.167.65 with SMTP id h59mr15544275edc.0.1497838927127; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 19:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.183.155 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Jun 2017 19:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D56C9B31.B5583%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CABFReBq7EzS=ujGKj4FyLitji04ptpH5txbWq3C+UzHRvrOVig@mail.gmail.com> <D56C3FCB.B553A%acee@cisco.com> <CA+wi2hNOqNR0txsjaCvpbSdvJExhu8rSUEYnKeAKSO1Nja7oYg@mail.gmail.com> <D56C9B31.B5583%acee@cisco.com>
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 19:21:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+wi2hMxGN-LfX=gyFJ6JmPg=zT_xRzifyzqkCMD_bLFKNqzqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c195af22ead79055246cdd8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/ToptLHrMFO1yFO53M4QjaWAfYVQ>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 02:22:11 -0000

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>om>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>rg>,
> 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>rg>, 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