Re: [Teas] Fwd: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch 1 WEEK
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 20 February 2020 04:05 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4091E12022E for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:05:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 eOBnXyhr4PRQ for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BDB612006E for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:05:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AF9548048; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:05:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 19CB0440040; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:05:20 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 05:05:20 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: teas@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200220040520.GZ14549@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CABFReBpXjpzdLTp9Ygnd9PjSSTKdWO664aVutgV-dgC3EJzZRA@mail.gmail.com> <b66f7ca7-934d-091f-b69f-b14388352092@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <b66f7ca7-934d-091f-b69f-b14388352092@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/OZlHw43JRX3DXgKq_rAboUEfDYE>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Fwd: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch 1 WEEK
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 04:05:36 -0000
Thanks Lou For various non-technical issues [1], this document took unfortunately quite long to get to this stage. At IETF101 i presented about BIER-TE in TEAS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-teas-framework-for-traffic-engineering-with-bier-te-forwarding This was related to the framework draft targeted for TEAS how to manage the traffic engineering of BIER-TE. That draft is currently expired because of [1], and after a BIER-TE RFC is out, we'll revisit how to best continue with that work. Because of Lous feedback on the BIER mailing list and the non-existance of an up-to-date TE framework doc for BIER-TE, i also pushed an update -06 of the BIER-TE spec with a short summary of what the framework was expected to include. The big building block for a complete statelesss multicast TE solution that was missing from the framework document is btw the stateless (hop-by-hop) latency management (cyclic queuing), which we only posted later (draft-qiang-detnet-large-scale-detnet). Cheers Toerless [1] too long to explain here ;-) On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:41:12PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > FYI - this may be of interest to some. > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/ > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch 1 WEEK > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:45:54 -0800 > From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> > Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> > CC: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, bier@ietf.org <bier@ietf.org> > > > > Thanks Toerless and Jeffrey > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/ > > One more week of WGLC. Please read the latest rev and respond to this thread > w/wo support. > > Chairs > (Shep) > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > > Hi Toerless, > > Thanks! > I support moving this to the next stage. > > Jeffrey > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:42:38PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > Thanks Jeff > > > > I have now pushed out -05 with the answers and hopefully > resolution to > > your points in email below. Biggest addition was a section about > > reuse of BPs (without DNR) which came out of the confusion i > think the > > reuse in the ECMP example raised. I was afraid so far to explan that > > as it may not be easy to absorb and ultimately is stuff only > > controller developers need to understand, but hopefully useful. > > And then of course the summary of BP optimizatins you asked for > > > > Diff from last version i sent you: > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https: > > **Araw.githubusercontent.com > <http://Araw.githubusercontent.com>*toerless*bier-te-arch*master*draft-ietf-b > > ier-te-arch-05.1.txt&url2=http:**Atools.ietf.org > <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te > > > -arch-05.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzH > > OCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx41_jWX2At8V-$ > > > > full -04 -> 05 diff: > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=http:* > > *Atools.ietf.org > <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-04.txt&url2=http:**Atools. > > ietf.org > <http://ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-05.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!!NEt6yMaO-gk > > !VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzHOCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx41_jWancpziv$ > > > > Comments inline below. > > > > Cheers > > toerless > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 07:52:59PM +0000, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > wrote: > > > I Thought u-turn is the most simple comparison leaf vs. > non-leaf BFR. > > > > > > Zzh> The text in the email is seriously misaligned. Looking at > the picture in the diff link, while you gave a U-turn example, > though even if BFER2 is not connected to BFR2 but only connected to > BFER1 (hence no U-turn), then BFER1 is still not a leaf BFER I > suppose. That's why I said the first sentence of the above paragraph > is enough to define Leaf BFER while the example itself is actually > not needed. > > > > Argh... ok, had to fix two words, BFIR->BFER and left-hand -> > right-hand: > > > > Consider how redundant disjoint traffic can reach BFER1/BFER2 in > above > > picture: When BFER1/BFER2 are Non-Leaf BFER as shown on the right > hand > > side, one traffic copy would be forwarded to BFER1 from BFR1, but > the > > other one could only reach BFER1 via BFER2, which makes BFER2 a > > non-Leaf BFER. Likewise BFER1 is a non-Leaf BFER when forwarding > > traffic to BFER2 > > > > > Zzh> Additionally, in left part of the picture you added, if > some failure leads to BFR2 to be only reachable via BFER1, then > BFER1 is no longer a leaf BFER. > > > > Added sentence: > > > > <t>Note that the BFER in the left hand picture are only > guaranteed to > > be leaf-BFR by fitting routing configuration that prohibits transit > > traffic to pass through a PE, which is commonly applied in these > > topologies.</t> > > > > > I assume you don't reassign BPs when links go up and down. > > > > I didn't want to discuss that option in this document. Its obviously > > perfectly feasible, but be yet a big amount of text (especially the > > considerations how to do this make-before-break. Future doc. > > > > > > but subsequent polarization example confuses me. It seems > that BP 0:6 is assigned to the routed adjacency BFR10 (which is > actually talked about in Section 4.8). > > > > > > Section 4.7 does not mention "routed" at all, so there are no > routed adjacencies at all used in 4.7. So i am not sure what you are > confused about. > > > > > > Zzh> "The BIFT of each BFR are only populated with BPs that are > adjacent to the BFR in the BIER-TE topology". > > > > Correct text from the introduction. Ok. > > > > > Zzh> Since the same 0:6 is in BIFTS of BFR1/BFR2/BFR3 (and I > suppose in BFR4~BFR9 as well even though not drawn), I assumed it's > for the "MP2P" routed adjacency to R10; though I then ruled that out > - but I don't know what 0:6 represent now on BFR1, BFR2, and BFR3. > > > > Ah. Ok. I thought i could strip down the example to show only the > > adjacencies relevant to the following discusion, but seemingly this > > can introduce the confusion you have. > > > > So i completed the example with the BP assignment acoss all > nodes, but > > added text pointing to a new section further down to discuss the > > re-use of BP for which thi picture is also an example. > > > > (check out the diff, new reuse text to long to copy inline). > > > > > The whole purpose of the ECMP BPs is of course to save bits, > otherwise we'd give each link a separate BP, which would be 6 BP to > reach to BFR4...BFR7 from BFR1. > > > > > > Zzh> The trouble I am having is that the same 0:6 is assigned > to different things and it's present on all BFR1/BFR2/BFR3. It is > perhaps an intentional smart design but I have not wrapped my mind > around it. It's apparently different from the link bundle case, so > better separate it out and elaborate it (including the DNR flag that > might be needed here - If the packet arrives on BFR1 with 0:6, would > the BP reset when it is sent to BFR2/3)? > > > > Yes, there was the bug of reusing BP 0:6 across sequential BFR along > > the path, but now the example correctly reuses separate BP at > > different stages of the paths (BP 0:6 on BFR1, BP 0:7 on > BFR2/BFR3) and so on. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > 4.8. Routed adjacencies > > > > > > > > If I understand it correctly, there is a BP assigned to L1/L2/L3 > > > > respectively (p2p link), and then there are BPs assigned to > MP2P tunnels (routed adjacency from every BFR) to the L1/L2/L3 > interface addresses and loopback addresses on BFR2/3. > > > > > > Ok that wasn't quite the read i expected. Let me clarify the > text/picture: > > > > > > ............... > > > ...BFR1--... ...--L1-- BFR2... > > > ... .Routers. ...--L2--/ > > > ...BFR4--... ...------ BFR3... > > > ............... | > > > LO > > > Network Area 1 > > > > > > Assume the requirement in the above picture is to explicitly > steer traffic flows that have arrived at BFR1 or BFR4 via a shortest > path in the routing underlay "network area 1" to one of the > following three next segments: (1) BFR2 via link L1, (2) BFR2 via > link L2, (3) via BFR3. > > > > > > To achieve this, both BFR1 and BFR4 are set up with a > forward_routed adjacency BitPosition towards an address of BFR2 on > link L1, another forward_routed BitPosition towards an address of > BFR2 on link L2 and a third forward_routed Bitposition towards a > node address LO of BFR3. > > > > > > Does this clear ip the confusion ? > > > > > > Zzh> The picture is badly misaligned. I'll wait till 4.7 > questions are cleared. > > > > Ok. > > > > > > If BFR2/3 are also BFERs, then they additionally will have > BFER BPs. > > > > On BFR1/4, the BIFT entries for the MP2P BPs for the > L1/L2/L3/loopback interface addresses of BFR2/3 will use > forward_routed(interface/loopback address). For a packet to be > decapsulated on a BFER, there is a need for both the BFER BP and > another BP (p2p/lan/hub-spoke/routed-adjacency) in the packet (the > former is for decapsulation and the latter is for getting it there). > > > > > > This is not discussed in this section, but you are right - unless > > > BFR2 or BFR3 is a leaf BFR. In that case, it would just > leverage the one shared "leaf-BFR" BP, so they do not need a > per-BFER BP for local_decap(). > > > > > > Zzh> Right - shared leaf-BFR BP but still need that BP (the key > is that we need a BP to get packet to a BFER and then a BP for > decapsulation). > > > > You got it. > > > > > > If that???s the case, it???s worth point the above out. > > > > > > Hmm... The logic of BFER BPs is totally independent of the > logic of forward_routed adjacency, so i would worry that repeating > the explanation of BFER BPs would conflate the forward_routed > explanation. > > > > > > Zzh> It's just that this is a place where all kinds of BPs are > used so it's good to have a summary (could be a subsection 4.9). > > > > Yes, added such a summary. Pls. check. > > > > > > Actually, the reason that I thought this is MP2P is that 0:6 > is present on R1, R2, and R3 (and more I assume) in Figure 12, but > now I think it can???t be MP2P (so it is not correct to have 0:6 > present on those routers ??? only the p2p tunnel head/tail should > have the BP present in the BIFT). The reason is that if it were > MP2P, any router getting a copy will send it to the endpoint of the > routed adjacency, causing lots of duplicates. > > > > > > > > Am I getting this correct? > > > > > > I think you are still explaining from the misunderstsanding > that the ECMP explanations where about routed adjacencies. > > > > > > I have now expanded the somewhat terse text in the BIFT table > pictures, to make it clear that the ECMP is across multipe > forward_connected adjacencies in the examples. For example, first > BIFT picture: > > > > > > BIFT entry in BFR1: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > | Index | Adjacencies | > > > ================================================================== > > > | 0:6 | ECMP({forward_connected(L1, BFR2), | > > > | | forward_connected(L2, BFR2), | > > > | | forward_connected(L3, BFR2)}, seed) > | > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Of course, an ECMP adjacency can be across any type of > adjacencies, but all the text/explanations used forward_connected, > and now the pictures show that explicitly. > > > > > > Zzh> I can understand the multi-link case, but the multi-hop > ECMP case (from BFR1 towards BFR10) is confusing me. It would help > to give an example how it can be used, WITHOUT worrying about > polarization. > > > > Please check -05 text that has the full set of BIFT listed now: > > > > There is really nothing nothing unique in multi-hop ECMP for > BIER-TE > > that we do not also have in any other ECMP, except the conclusion > that > > we want to support fast HW hash mechanisms AND allow the > controller to > > set up non-polarized multi-hop ECMP AND be able to precalculate > paths. > > Hence the specification of ECMP adjacencies to have a controller > > configurable seed. > > > > Btw: The picture is maybe unnecessarily large because i've used > it for > > 20 years to explain the same polarization issue for unicast vs > > multicast, and for multicast only BFR10...BFR4 are relevant (ECMP of > > the PIM/mLDP joins), whereas for unicast/BIER only > > BFR1...BFR7 are relevant. But being symmetric, the picture makes it > > clear its the same problem. > > > > > > To inhibit looping in the face of such physical > misconfiguration, > > > > only forward_connected adjacencies are permitted to have > DNR set, and > > > > the link layer destination address of the adjacency (e.g. MAC > > > > address) protects against closing the loop. Link layers > without port > > > > unique link layer addresses should not be used with the > DNR flag set. > > > > > > > > It???s not clear how link layer address helps? > > > > > > I have expanded this to > > > "link layer port unique unicast destination address" > > > > > > Aka: MPLS or ethernet have unique link layer destination > destination addresses (label or destination MAC). If you think about > incorrectly plugged HDLC links (such as old T1/T3/... links), they > only have 2 generic addresses, if i remember 1 or 3 in the HDLC > frame. So when you misplug one of those p2p cables wrong, the > packets would be incrrectly received by the wrong receiver node and > then DNR could cause persistent loops only solved by TTL. > > > > > > Zzh> "Consider in the ring picture that link L4 from BFR3 is > plugged into the L1 interface of BFRa" - still not sure how > label/mac helps here. I suppose the ring topology is > discovered/verified by the control plane and when the miscalling > happens then the ring will not include the BFR1/BFR2 part and BFR3 > will not have the DNR set? If ring discovery/varication is not done > then perhaps we should point out that RPF based on link layer > address is needed - the key is RPF (which needs unique link layer > address)? > > > > Forget RPF. BIER(-TE) has no RPF (issues). Its just like unicast. > RPF > > is just a problem for receiver originated joins like in PIM/mLDP, > but > > not unicast/bier(-te)/RSVP-TE. > > > > Forward_connected is just like a unicast subnet adjacency to a > direct > > neighbor: Interface and L2 addresss of the destination. > > > > The controller (could be a human) "assumes" a particular physicial > > topology, from telemetry/knowledge/whatever. It then calculates the > > desired BIER-TE topology and pushes it down. This topology is > meant to > > be loop free of course wrt to the configured adjacencies. > > In this BIER-TE topology, BFR3 will have a BP with the > > forward_connected(L4, MAC-of-BFR2) adjacency. > > > > If the cable connecting to L4 is miswired, then BFR3 would still > send > > the packets to the MAC address of BFR2, but given how the cable > > connects to some other node, these packets will be discarded by that > > node. because they're just L2 unicast packets. > > > > I think this is equally true when we have normal BIER/MPLS enacp. > > Those packets too are addressed to the unicast MAC address of the > > neighbor. > > > > Now, if/when he controller recognizes that the physical topology has > > changed, thats a completely different story and not addressed here. > > Given how we assumed this was a cabling mistake, the controller > would > > probably only complain about the miswiring to operations but be > happy > > that the forwarding plane just makes packets fail instead of > loop. If > > this was a planned change process, then it will be similarily > > convoluted as it would today be with rewiring cables in an > > SR-MPLS/SRv6 topology and updating SIDs. > > > > > > Because the forwarding is different from BIER forwarding > (because of [1] above), we might as well introduce an optimization > here ??? for each BIFT, calculate the F-BM of the BIFT itself (the > logical ???or??? of all the BPs presented in this BIFT) and then use > (packet->bitstring & BIFT.F-BM) as the input to > GetFirst/NextBitPosition(). That should skip many bits. > > > > > > Right. But i explicitly removed those optimizations (i had them > in older draft versions) because the whole idea of this picture is > solely the comparison with figure 4 of RFC8279. > > > > > > Zzh> I think it's worth point that optimization out; you can > mark it optional if you want to emphasize the similarity to BIER > forwarding, but since BIER forwarding does do the maskoff step, it > is very efficient while BIER-TE forwarding does not it the maskoff > step so this optimization is important. > > > > Ok. I simplified the text comparison BIER/BIER-TE wrt. to the FBM > > rules [1] and [2] and added following paragraph: > > > > <t>In BIER, the order of BPs impacts the result of forwarding > because of [1]. > > In BIER-TE, forwarding is not impacted by the order of BPs. It is > > therefore possible to further optimize forwarding than in BIER. For > > example parallelizing forwarding across multiple FPE cores or > > distributed linecards does only need to examine an arbitrary > subset of > > BP and not evaluate the dependency between BPs.</t> > > > > > > The following pseudocode is comprehensive: > > > > > > > > The above sentence reads a bit strange (or lacks some segue). > > > > > > I hope not, but maybe best left to a native english speaker > (RFC-editor). > > > > > > The first (RFC8279) pseudocode was simplified. The second one > is comprehensive. If not comprehensive, whats a good opposite of > simplified ? > > > > > > Zzh> Perhaps "The above simplified pseudocode is elaborated > further as following"? > > > Zzh> Jeffrey > > > > Done. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: BIER [bier-bounces@ietf.org > <mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org > <mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>>] > > > > on behalf of Toerless Eckert [tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de><mailto:tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>>] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 23:38 > > > > To: Mike McBride > > > > Cc: Greg Shepherd; BIER WG; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > > > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch > > > > > > > > Thanks, Mike > > > > > > > > The authors also reviewed the document and concluded that it was > > > > really hard to get into the document context because of too many > > > > forward dependencies. We tried to fix this by adding two > hopefully > > > > good & basic examples into the Introduction section and using > them > > > > to also add a better definition of the term "BIER-TE > Topology" in the Introduction. > > > > Hopefully this makes readin the rest of te document smoother. > > > > > > > > Also improved text of Abstract and refined text compariing > BIER-TE with SR. > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https: > > > > **Atools.ietf.org > <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt&url2=https:**A > > > > tool > > > > s.ietf.org > <http://s.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!8WoA6R > > > > jC81 > > > > > c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNV_eTUEh > > > > $ > > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tools.ietf.org/*rfcdiff?url1=https: > > > > **Atools.ietf.org > <http://Atools.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-02.txt&url2=https:**A > > > > tool > > > > s.ietf.org > <http://s.ietf.org>*id*draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-03.txt__;Ly8vLy8vLy8v!8WoA6R > > > > jC81 > > > > > c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sNd1njcX > > > > $> > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Toerless > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Mike McBride wrote: > > > > > How about three? I support. > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:42 AM Greg Shepherd > <gjshep@gmail.com <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com><mailto:gjshep@gmail.com > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot take two 'yes' votes and WG consensus. > > > > > > Please, read and respond. If you don't support, then > please vote as much publicly right here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > <pthubert@cisco.com > <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com><mailto:pthubert@cisco.com > <mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Support: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I see great value in deterministic networks as well as > IOT (with RPL). > > > > > >> > > > > > >> All the best, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Pascal > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> > From: BIER > > > > > >> > <bier-bounces@ietf.org > <mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org > <mailto:bier-bounces@ietf.org>>> On > > > > > >> > Behalf Of Toerless Eckert > > > > > >> > Sent: mardi 4 juin 2019 02:03 > > > > > >> > To: Greg Shepherd > > > > > >> > <gjshep@gmail.com > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com><mailto:gjshep@gmail.com > <mailto:gjshep@gmail.com>>> > > > > > >> > Cc: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org > <mailto:bier@ietf.org><mailto:bier@ietf.org <mailto:bier@ietf.org>>> > > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > +1 > > > > > >> > Obviously support as co-author. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:41:26PM -0700, Greg > Shepherd wrote: > > > > > >> > > Please read and respond to this thread w/ or w/o > support. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker..ietf.org > > > > > >> > > /doc > > > > > >> > > > /draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_s > > > > > >> > > ercw ZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNV9eClBj$ > > > > > >> > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/ > > > > > >> > > doc/ > > > > > >> > > > draft-ietf-bier-te-arch/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanx > > > > > >> > > s6vI b_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sD40kmtH$> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Vote ends 5 June 2019. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > >> > > Shep > > > > > >> > > (chairs) > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> > > BIER mailing list > > > > > >> > > BIER@ietf.org > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org><mailto:BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>> > > > > > >> > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/ > > > > > >> > > list > > > > > >> > > > info/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eE > > > > > >> > > NOs4 l_qdsXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$ > > > > > >> > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/ > > > > > >> > > list > > > > > >> > > > info/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6b > > > > > >> > > oAAW 4nrqju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> > BIER mailing list > > > > > >> > BIER@ietf.org > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org><mailto:BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>> > > > > > >> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/li > > > > > >> > stin > > > > > >> > > fo/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4 > > > > > >> > l_qd > > > > > >> > sXF0KwZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$ > > > > > >> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/li > > > > > >> > stin > > > > > >> > > fo/bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW > > > > > >> > 4nrq > > > > > >> > ju8UCLOgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > BIER mailing list > > > > > > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org><mailto:BIER@ietf.org > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>> > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi > > > > > > nfo/ > > > > > > > bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsX > > > > > > F0Kw > > > > > > ZD82cJLDFFNT2WVXWX$ > > > > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listi > > > > > > nfo/ > > > > > > > bier__;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju > > > > > > 8UCL > > > > > > OgiuXc8Y_6sKn2KoAT$> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > > > tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de><mailto:tte@cs.fau.de > <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > BIER mailing list > > > > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org><mailto:BIER@ietf.org > <mailto:BIER@ietf.org>> > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ > > > > bier > > > > > __;!8WoA6RjC81c!XvH4AAxfrDjFoK_sercwZMsc0O5N42eENOs4l_qdsXF0KwZD82 > > > > cJLD > > > > FFNT2WVXWX$ > > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ > > > > bier > > > > > __;!8WoA6RjC81c!UBTGvWWpMHyeiSanxs6vIb_EnBVgyg6boAAW4nrqju8UCLOgiu > > > > Xc8Y > > > > _6sKn2KoAT$> > > > > > > -- > > > --- > > > tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de> > > > > -- > > --- > > tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BIER mailing list > > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > > > __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VuQCVHnqJy_aYI-FNt9A1a5EzHOCr0fZkLPbgg3CPNu0PyrWsrFx4 > > 1_jWV3YUA6D$ > > -- > --- > tte@cs.fau.de <mailto:tte@cs.fau.de> > > _______________________________________________ > BIER mailing list > BIER@ietf.org <mailto:BIER@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas -- --- tte@cs.fau.de
- [Teas] Fwd: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-arch… Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Fwd: [Bier] WGLC - draft-ietf-bier-te-… Toerless Eckert