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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[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
