Peter, Acee, agree that this was missed in architecture and we should have talked about multiple encaps on a link there (just like we mentioned the BSL conversion). Alas, it was theoretical then and we missed. It was just a suggestion here to put it into IGP draft as we did in ISIS. I'm fine whichever way you guys feel it's better and a clarification draft can be always published later after more experience in the field albeit it seems that the issue is straight fwd' for most old hands, it's a link local decision so just use any matching encaps to transfer, however the computation has to agree to prevent blackholes ...
Otherwise went through the important sections on -11 and looks good to me, no further comments. Thanks for the work --- tony On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > With respect to the text in section 5.2, I agree with Peter. > > Thanks > Acee > > On 2/12/18, 9:59 AM, "BIER on behalf of Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" < > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
