Hi Tony,
On 09/02/18 20:04 , Tony Przygienda wrote:
Les has the diff, I'd expect him to publish any minute to the list ...
The encaps was a real defect, the rest is just tightening down the
language/spec where it was too loose/too strict.
OSPF still needs update with conversion TLV removed,
that has been removed already and is NOT anymore in the published
version 10.
thanks,
Peter
same paragraph on
encaps could be useful. I hope Greg pinged Peter ...
thanks
tony
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Went last nits with Les, we found one issue (encaps section was
wrong, need to look @ OSPF as well) and basically tightened
language in few places.
K - please get that out with the details of changes to the list. I
did my AD review back in Oct and looked at the differences before
issuing
IETF Last Call.
I look forward to reviewing the minor changes.
Regards,
Alia
tony
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Greg Shepherd <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thanks Les.
Any other feedback? Looks like the concerns have been
addressed. Speak now.
Cheers,
Greg
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Greg –____
__ __
This thread is outdated.____
In V6 of the draft we removed the restriction to limit
IS-IS BIER support to area boundaries – so Toerless’s
comment (and my proposed text) are no longer relevant.____
__ __
Specifically:____
__ __
Section 4.1:____
__ __
“At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER
domain/sub-domain is ____
limited to a single area - or to the
IS-IS L2 sub-domain.”____
__ __
The above text was removed.____
__ __
Section 4.2____
__ __
o BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when a prefix
reachability____
advertisement is leaked between levels.____
__ __
Was changed to____
__ __
o BIER sub-TLVs MUST be included when a prefix
reachability____
advertisement is leaked between levels.____
__ __
This aligns IS-IS and OSPF drafts in this regard.____
__ __
Les____
__ __
*From:*Greg Shepherd [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
*Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:23 AM
*To:* Toerless Eckert <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tony Przygienda
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
Hannes Gredler ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>) <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> list <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Christian Hopps
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC:
draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04____
__ __
Have these changes been reflected in the draft? We're in
WGLC but this discussion needs to come to a conclusion
so we can progress. ____
__ __
Greg____
__ __
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Toerless Eckert
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:____
Thanks, Less, that would be lovely!
I didn't check the OSPF draft, if its similar state,
explanatory text wold equally be appreciated.____
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:28:08PM +0000, Les
Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Toerless -
>
> I am thinking to add a statement in Section 4.1 -
something like:
>
> "At present, IS-IS support for a given BIER
domain/sub-domain is limited to a single area - or
to the IS-IS L2 sub-domain."
>
> If you believe this would be helpful I will spin
a new version (subject to review/agreement from my
co-authors).
>
> Les
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Toerless Eckert [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:34 AM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > Cc: Tony Przygienda; Hannes Gredler
([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>); Greg
Shepherd;
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> list;
Christian Hopps
> > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC:
draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
> >
> > Thanks Les
> >
> > When searching various terms in the doc to
figure out what happens i am not
> > sure why i missed this one.
> >
> > But: IMHO, RFCs can not only be the minimum
number of words to get a
> > running implementation. It also needs to
specify what this implementation
> > intends to achieve. Otherwise its not possible
to do a useful review:
> > The reviewer can to verify whether the spec
will achieve what it claims to
> > achieve is there no definitionn of what it
claims to achieve.
> >
> > If i understand ISIS correctly, my reverse
engineering of the intent is:
> >
> > - BIER TLVs stay within single ISIS areas. BFIR
and BFER must therefore be
> > in the same ISIS area: There is no inter-area
BIER traffic possible
> > with this specification. This is also true
for ISIS area 0.
> >
> > - The same BIER sub-domain identifiers can be
re-used
> > across different ISIS areas without any
current impact. If these BFR-IDs
> > are non-overlapping, then this would allow in
the future to create a single
> > cross ISIS area BIER sub-domain by leaking
TLVs for such a BIER sub-domain
> > across ISIS levels. Leakage is outside the
scope of this specificication.
> >
> > I actually even would like to do the following:
> >
> > - If BIER sub-domains are made to span multiple
ISIS areas and BFR-ids
> > assignemtns
> > are made such that all BFR-ids with the same
SI are in the same ISIS ara,
> > then it should be in the future reasonably
easy to create inter-area BIER
> > not by leaking of the BIER TLV but by having
BFIR MPLS unicastBIER packets
> > for different SIs to an appropriate L2L1 BFIR
that is part of the destination
> > area/SI.
> > (if you would use SI number that are the same
as ISIS area numbers then
> > you could probably do this without any new
signaling. Not quite sure if
> > you can today easily find L1L2 border router
for another area via existing
> > TLVs).
> >
> > Alas, this idea will probably be killed
because of the BIER architecture
> > intent not to engineer SI assignments in
geographical fashions to
> > minimize traffic duplication in the presence
of multiple SIs.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Toerless
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:03:53AM +0000, Les
Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> > > Tony/Toerless ???
> > >
> > > There is an explicit statement as to scope:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > Section 4.2
> > > ???
> > > o BIER sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when
a prefix reachability
> > > advertisement is leaked between levels.
> > > <end snip>
> > >
> > > Tony seems to have forgotten that we had a
discussion about how BIER
> > might be supported across areas and the
conclusion was we did not know
> > how to do that yet.
> > > (Sorry Tony)
> > >
> > > Note this is ???consistent??? with
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier-
<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bier->
> > ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt Section
2.5<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf->
> >
bier-ospf-bier-extensions-07.txt%20Section%202.5> -
which limits the
> > flooding scope of BIER information to a single
area unless it can be validated
> > that the best path to the prefix with BIER info
can be validated to be to a
> > router which itself advertised the BIER info.
This is not something IS-IS can do
> > since a single IS-IS instance only supports one
area and therefore does not
> > have the Level-1 advertisements of the
originating router when that router is
> > in another area.
> > >
> > > A few more responses inline.
> > >
> > > From: BIER [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Tony
Przygienda
> > > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:17 AM
> > > To: Toerless Eckert
> > > Cc: Hannes Gredler ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>); Greg Shepherd;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
> > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
list; Christian Hopps
> > > Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC:
draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
> > >
> > > Terminology is a bit nits IMO since the doc
is reading clear enough for
> > someone who read BIER & ISIS. I can reread it
or Les can comment whether
> > we should tighten glossary ...
> > >
> > > With the scope I agree, that got lost and the
doc should be possibly rev'ed
> > before closing LC. Yes, we flood AD wide was
the agreement but something
> > mentioning that this could change in the future
is good so we are forced to
> > give it some thought how that would transition ...
> > >
> > > Thinking further though, in ISIS we have a
clean document really. The BIER
> > sub-TLVs go into well defined TLVs in terms of
flooding scope. Normal L1-L2
> > redistribution can be used to get the info to
all needed places AFAIS. So
> > maybe nothing needs to be written. I wait for
Les to chime in.
> > >
> > > OSPF I would have to look @ scopes again &
think whether we need to
> > write something or maybe Peter can comment ...
> > >
> > > --- tony
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Toerless Eckert
> > <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> > > Sorry, past the two weeks, but hopefully
benign textual comments:
> > >
> > > We tried to find an explicit statement about
the scope of BIER TLVs - eg:
> > > are they meant to stay within an area, have
some redistribution across
> > > areas/levels or not.
> > >
> > > Tony said WG agreement was to have these TLV
be flooded across the
> > > whole ISIS domain for now (this draft). So an
explicit statement to that
> > effect would
> > > be great (All BIER sub-domains TLVs are
flooded across all ISIS areas/levels,
> > so they span the whole ISIS domain).
> > >
> > > Also, if future work may/should could improve
on that maybe some
> > > sentence about that (i guess one could just
have ISIS intra-area BIER sub-
> > domains ?).
> > >
> > > Also: Do a check about possible ambiguity of
any generic terms like
> > sub-domain, level, area, topology so that
reader that don't know the
> > terminology ofall protocols (ISIS, BIER) by
heart can easily know which
> > protocol is referred to.
> > >
> > > [Les:] There is no mention of ???level??? in
the document.
> > > The use of ???sub-domain??? is clearly always
associated with ???BIER???.
> > > ???topology??? is always used as an RFC 5120
topology ??? therefore
> > clearly an IS-IS topology.
> > > There is only one use of the term ???area???
(in Section 5.1). That text
> > might deserve a bit of clarification given this
might be either a Level 1 area or
> > the Level2 sub-domain. I???ll take a pass at it.
> > > (BTW ??? I am talking about IS-IS
area/L2sub-domain Toerless. ???)
> > >
> > > I don???t see that any other clarification is
needed ??? but Toerless ??? if
> > you can point to any specific
sentences/paragraphs which you find confusing
> > - I???ll take a second look.
> > >
> > > Les
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess there are no BIER level, area or
topologies, but still makes
> > > reading easier if the doc would say "ISIS
level", "ISIS area", or at
> > > least have them in the Terminology section.
And probably in
> > > terminology say "domain -> in the context of
this document the BIER
> > domain which is also the same as the ISIS domain"
> > > (which i hope is the correct statement, see
above).
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Toerless
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > BIER mailing list
> > > [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
<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
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>____
__ __
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
