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) <a...@cisco.com> 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)" <
> bier-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ppse...@cisco.com> 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 <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
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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