Hi Tony,

OSPF does not have the original text, so it does not need the new one.

IMHO, the text in section 5 of ISIS BIER draft suits better to the BIER architecture draft than to the IGP extension draft.

thanks,
Peter


On 09/02/18 20:17 , Tony Przygienda wrote:
Sure ;-)  let me ping Peter @ the bottom then ... I don't think any of
the stuff applies to OSPF (was ISIS nits) except we can consider an
encaps paragraph. We basically suggest both to replace in ISIS the
encaps section like this

before:

"
    All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise the
    same encapsulation for a given <MT,SD>.  A router discovering
    encapsulation advertised that is different from its own MUST report a
    misconfiguration of a specific <MT,SD>.  All received BIER
    advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be
    ignored.

"

now

"

    Multiple encapsulations MAY be advertised/supported for a given
    <MT,SD>.  Clearly, however, there MUST be at least one encapsulation
    type in common in order for a BIER encapsulated packet to be
    successfully forwarded between two BFRs.

"

I do think that OSPF would benefit from adding this section to clarify
the issue which is not theoretical now that we have Ethernet.


So Peter, any ETA on outstanding OSPF nits now that we're tying up the
IETF LC?

thanks

--- tony


On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Greg Shepherd <gjs...@gmail.com
<mailto:gjs...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    No I didn't. Why would I? These are the changes you and Les worked
    out. I assumed you'd share them as needed. If for some reason you're
    uncomfortable engaging with the OSPF draft thread and authors with
    your proposed changes, let me know and I'll broker the conversation.

    Greg

    On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Tony Przygienda
    <tonysi...@gmail.com <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>> 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, 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 <akat...@gmail.com
        <mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote:

            On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda
            <tonysi...@gmail.com <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>> 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
                <gjs...@gmail.com <mailto:gjs...@gmail.com>> 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) <ginsb...@cisco.com
                    <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> 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:gjs...@gmail.com
                        <mailto:gjs...@gmail.com>]
                        *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:23 AM
                        *To:* Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de
                        <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>>
                        *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
                        <ginsb...@cisco.com
                        <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; Tony Przygienda
                        <tonysi...@gmail.com
                        <mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>; Hannes Gredler
                        (han...@gredler.at <mailto:han...@gredler.at>)
                        <han...@gredler.at <mailto:han...@gredler.at>>;
                        b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>;
                        isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list
                        <isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>;
                        Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org
                        <mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>


                        *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 <t...@cs.fau.de <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>>
                        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:t...@cs.fau.de <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>]
                             > > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:34 AM
                             > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
                             > > Cc: Tony Przygienda; Hannes Gredler
                            (han...@gredler.at
                            <mailto:han...@gredler.at>); Greg Shepherd;
                             > > b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>;
                            isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
                            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:bier-boun...@ietf.org
                            <mailto:bier-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of
                            Tony Przygienda
                             > > > Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 5:17 AM
                             > > > To: Toerless Eckert
                             > > > Cc: Hannes Gredler (han...@gredler.at
                            <mailto:han...@gredler.at>); Greg Shepherd;
                            b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>;
                             > > > isis-wg@ietf.org
                            <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> 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
                             > > <t...@cs.fau.de
                            <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de><mailto:t...@cs.fau.de
                            <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>>> 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
                             > > > b...@ietf.org
                            <mailto:b...@ietf.org><mailto:b...@ietf.org
                            <mailto:b...@ietf.org>>
                             > > >
                            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
                             > >
                             > > --
                             > > ---
                             > > t...@cs.fau.de <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>____

                        __ __




                _______________________________________________
                BIER mailing list
                b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>
                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
                <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>







_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
b...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier


_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
Isis-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

Reply via email to