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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 19 June 2017 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 AE12E12EA56; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 04:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 2XooHjBhgeOZ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 04:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B794312EABA; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 04:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=86472; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497872484; x=1499082084; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=I8ENNIVGueWFWbJtoOMkbsWml+SWykFgnZqd8Uu8qfw=; b=DR9Kau5zhbju/Gk+9xv9haYEfS7yVRZAAhuThUgbNolIJE9P+LD/s5D3 F6xo3V+loS4Wwmo6QkC0y6l+WQYagpWvckelkS5sWgYUfGZhDW06Mhvme hkYdpQXG+JlwlKh/MJlCB2D2I4GaXcL6mcvxVekgiN6C9gUAUdZRq+PP0 Y=;
X-Files: PastedGraphic-6.png : 43631
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B2AQAbuEdZ/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm88LWJ7EgeDZIoZkXqIK4gihSqCDgMHARkBCoV4AhqCMT8YAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEDAQEDHksLEAIBCBEBAgECBgEBAR8DAgICFQEJBQELF?= =?us-ascii?q?AMGCAIEDgQBBgiKBgMVEK4CgiaHLw2EJQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ4?= =?us-ascii?q?KBYhCAYMigleBYxIBMwkGgmyCYQWXHIcHOwKEEoIdAX6HSIFNgxqSDYtYiTABH?= =?us-ascii?q?zh/C3QVSYUNHIFmdgGHMIEjgQ0BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,360,1493683200"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="439533148"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jun 2017 11:41:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com (xch-rtp-006.cisco.com [64.101.220.146]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5JBfNrJ020171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:41:23 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-006.cisco.com (64.101.220.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:41:22 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:41:22 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <ice@cisco.com>
CC: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>, "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>, "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
Thread-Index: AQHS5VYLGSOlKtAx/Euz6n9XKUfvmKIq+fOAgABNYICAACBWgIAAxAIA///rjoA=
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:41:22 +0000
Message-ID: <D56D2F5B.B5615%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> <21186D75-B91B-4445-84E3-A0C4B71E08CF@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <21186D75-B91B-4445-84E3-A0C4B71E08CF@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_D56D2F5BB5615aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/iZB7mW19HzOD8G1f4H7xD5yX9Js>
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 11:42:12 -0000

Ice, Tony,
I think It would be good then to tie the IGP encodings to the two examples. The second example in the MPLS encapsulation draft implies a single contiguous range of labels when, in fact, it must be encoded as 4 separate label ranges in the OSPF draft.

Thanks,
Acee

From: "IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)" <ice@cisco.com<mailto:ice@cisco.com>>
Date: Monday, June 19, 2017 at 4:54 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com<mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org>>, "gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>" <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>, "bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>" <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

Hi Acee,

Thanks for the comments.

The ordering is not by SD, but SI.

The text below this example says the following:

"The first label in the range could correspond to SI 0, and the second to SI 1."


The “key” for the Label range is {SD, BSL}, and the index into the range is SI. So in the example below you see a Label range of 4 labels (L1-L4) for {0,256}, 2 labels (L5-L6) for {0,512}, etc….

Does that clarify it?

Thx,

Ice.


On 19 Jun 2017, at 03:12, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com<mailto: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<mailto:tonysietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:17 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Cc: "gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>" <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>, "bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>" <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto: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/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<mailto: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<mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>" <gjshep@gmail.com<mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:34 PM
To: "bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>" <bier@ietf.org<mailto:bier@ietf.org>>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
BIER@ietf.org<mailto:BIER@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

[cid:6D5DA0C0-E3D6-4998-A2B2-FBE7253DB66D@cisco.com]