+1 what Les says as my understanding of the problem we're tackling here ...
--- tony
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsb...@cisco.com <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Ice –____
__ __
MY understanding is that – in the future – there may be additional
encaps defined for BIER. When that happens, a given BFR may support
multiple encaps. In such a case, it is OK if other BFRs supporting
the same <MT,SD> only support one of the set of encaps – so long as
we have one encap in common we can successfully forward. I believe
that is the case the text change is trying to address – not encap vs
no encap. The original text would have required identical sets of
encaps to be supported by all BFRs for a give <MT,SD> - which is
unnecessarily restrictive.____
__ __
Make sense?____
__ __
Les____
__ __
__ __
*From:*IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
*Sent:* Monday, February 12, 2018 1:50 PM
*To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com
<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>
*Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>>;
b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
<ppse...@cisco.com <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>; isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list <isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>
*Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04____
__ __
Les,____
__ __
(If MPLS encapsulation (Section 2.1 of [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS]) is
being used, this means that every BFR that is advertising
a label
for sub-domain S is advertising a label for the
combination of
sub-domain S and Disposition BitStringLength L.)____
__ __
It says, if MPLS encapsulation is used, there is a Label for the
{SD, BSL}. So, if there is non-MPLS (ether) only, there will not be
a Label and the compatibility check will fail. Is that not the same
a router that does not support MPLS BIER, and treated as a non-BIER
router?____
__ __
[Les:] I don’t see how this text can be used to mean “multiple
encap types can be supported on the same BFR for a given <MT,SD>”.
???____
__ __
Are these not like ships in the night? Like an Prefix can be
reachable over MPLS and IP on the same interface? I do assume you
want to stay with the encapsulation that you where provisioned in
and not move from MPLS into non-MPLS. Why do you need to say you can
support both?____
__ __
Thx,____
__ __
Ice.____
__ __
__ __
On 12 Feb 2018, at 22:16, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsb...@cisco.com <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Ice -
From: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:58 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com
<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>
Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>>;
b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
<ppse...@cisco.com <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>; isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> list <isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
Les,
Perhaps the thread is too long and you have gotten confused. J
Maybe :-), but...
The point being discussed now is support for multiple
encapsulation types (BSL conversion was mentioned in the thread
– but it is NOT the subject being discussed at the moment).
I got that, it was removed after a long debate sometime back.
In latest IS-IS BIER draft we changed:
> 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.
>
> "
>
> to
>
> "
>
> 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.
>
Point has been made that this really belongs in the architecture
RFC, but since it isn’t there it may make sense for the IGP
drafts to mention it.
Below is taken from "6.10.1. BitStringLength Compatibility
Check” RFC 8279, does this not cover it?
****
The combination of sub-domain S and Imposition BitStringLength L
passes the BitStringLength Compatibility Check if and only
if the
following condition holds:
Every BFR that has advertised its membership in
sub-domain S has
also advertised that it is using Disposition
BitStringLength L
(and possibly other BitStringLengths as well) in that
sub-domain.
(If MPLS encapsulation (Section 2.1 of [MPLS_BIER_ENCAPS]) is
being used, this means that every BFR that is advertising
a label
for sub-domain S is advertising a label for the
combination of
sub-domain S and Disposition BitStringLength L.)
If a BFIR has been provisioned to use a particular Imposition
BitStringLength and a particular sub-domain for some set of
packets,
and if that combination of Imposition BitStringLength and
sub-domain
does not pass the BitStringLength Compatibility Check, the BFIR
SHOULD log this fact as an error.
****
[Les:] I don’t see how this text can be used to mean “multiple
encap types can be supported on the same BFR for a given <MT,SD>”.
???
Les
Thx,
Ice.
In the case of IS-IS, because earlier versions of the draft had
an explicit statement which we now consider too limiting, it
made sense to make an explicit statement of the more flexible
behavior.
In the case of OSPF, the overly restrictive text was never
present, so it is more debatable as to whether the clarifying
statement is needed – but doing so keeps the drafts in sync.
Still, the “right solution” would be to have the statement in
RFC 8279 – but a bit late for that.
Les
From: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand)
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:05 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Cc: Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsb...@cisco.com <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; 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>>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
<ppse...@cisco.com <mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
Folks,
I would say its wrong to try and fix the BIER architecture by
adding this into the IGP drafts. The IGP is a pass-through for
the BIER information, and adding this text seems to imply that
the IGP now needs to become BIER aware in order to detect and
trigger notifications of encapsulation incompatibilities.
The BIER architecture RFC 8279 has section 6.10 "Use of
Different BitStringLengths within a Domain”, what is missing in
that section that would justify the IGP to become aware of
BitStringLength differences? IMO everything is covered.
Thx,
Ice.
On 12 Feb 2018, at 19:33, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com
<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Tony,
I agree that since architecture has been published, it would not
hurt to add the 5.2 text to the IGP documents.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:13 PM
To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com <mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <ppse...@cisco.com
<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
<ginsb...@cisco.com <mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>, "b...@ietf.org
<mailto:b...@ietf.org>" <b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>>,
"isis-wg@ietf.org list <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org%20list>"
<isis-wg@ietf.org <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
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 <mailto: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
<mailto:bier-boun...@ietf.org%20on%20behalf%20of%c2%a0ppse...@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%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<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
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com%20%3cmailto: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%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda
> <tonysi...@gmail.com
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com%20%3cmailto: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
<mailto:gjs...@gmail.com%20%3cmailto: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%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<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>
<mailto:gjs...@gmail.com%0b%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%3e%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%3cmailto:gjs...@gmail.com%3e>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 01,
2018 2:23 AM
> *To:* Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de
<mailto:t...@cs.fau.de%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>>
> *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <ginsb...@cisco.com
<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>>; Tony Przygienda
> <tonysi...@gmail.com
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<mailto:tonysi...@gmail.com>>; Hannes Gredler
> (han...@gredler.at
<mailto:han...@gredler.at> <mailto:han...@gredler.at
<mailto:han...@gredler.at>>)
> <han...@gredler.at
<mailto:han...@gredler.at
<mailto:han...@gredler.at%20%3cmailto:han...@gredler.at>>>;
> b...@ietf.org
<mailto:b...@ietf.org> <mailto:b...@ietf.org
<mailto:b...@ietf.org>>;
> isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>> list
> <isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org%20%3cmailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>>>;
> Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org
<mailto:cho...@chopps.org%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<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
<mailto:t...@cs.fau.de%20%3cmailto: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>
<mailto:t...@cs.fau.de%20%3cmailto:t...@cs.fau.de%3e>]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 22,
2017 6:34 AM
> > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > > Cc: Tony Przygienda;
Hannes Gredler
> (han...@gredler.at
<mailto:han...@gredler.at>
> <mailto:han...@gredler.at>);
Greg Shepherd;
> > > b...@ietf.org
<mailto:b...@ietf.org> <mailto:b...@ietf.org
<mailto:b...@ietf.org>>;
> isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org> <mailto: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->
>
<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-%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<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>
<mailto:bier-boun...@ietf.org%0b%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%3e%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0%20%3cmailto:bier-boun...@ietf.org%3e>]
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>
> <mailto:han...@gredler.at>);
Greg Shepherd;
> b...@ietf.org
<mailto:b...@ietf.org> <mailto:b...@ietf.org
<mailto:b...@ietf.org>>;
> > > > isis-wg@ietf.org
<mailto: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%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<mailto:t...@cs.fau.de><mailto:t...@cs.fau.de
<mailto:t...@cs.fau.de%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<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
<mailto:b...@ietf.org%0b%C2%A0%20>>
<mailto:b...@ietf.org>>
> > > >
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
>
<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> <mailto:t...@cs.fau.de
<mailto:t...@cs.fau.de>>____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> 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>
>
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <mailto:b...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
<image001.png>____
__ __
____
__ __
_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
b...@ietf.org <mailto:b...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>
