As I said, if we think it's more complex than what we wrote for the ISIS draft then I'm fine with a simple "here be dragons" disclaimer on the drafts as long we don't leave it as an unmentioned minefield for the developers. And then we start a draft standardizing, I foresee a BIER, eeh beer session @ the bar in London ;-)
--- tony On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] > wrote: > Tony – > > > > I think the issues around supporting multiple encap types and how one > might map one encap to another if your outgoing neighbor did not support > the incoming encap are much more complex than the simple statement we have > in the IS-IS draft. > > I do think it would be better if we did not make a statement which > suggests there is a way to support something – but the actual details of > how to support are still TBD. Better to put that in a draft that has the > context to completely define such a solution. What is currently in the > IS-IS isn’t useful w/o the additional detail. > > > > The new text we have is better than the old text – but I do agree with > others that it really doesn’t belong in the IGP drafts. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Tony Przygienda [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:17 AM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Eric C Rosen <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) < > [email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) <[email protected]>; [email protected] list < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > > > Yes, it's one possible interpretation ;-) albeit I would be more > comfortable to deliver draft(s) that can be looked @ and implemented as > they are written and published ;-) > > So let's say, if we can all agree that there is one correct interpretation > (and I suggest of course what we both agreed on but have no vested stake) > then I prefer to have the drafts put it in as part of IETF LC comments. If > we cannot agree, be it, let us put in a sentence to the tune of "issue of > multiple encapsulations on the same <MT,SD,BML> combination is undefined in > this RFC" which basically reads "here be dragons" which is inifintely > better than having looping implementations because no'one knew what the > score was. And in such case I would recommend to immediately follow up with > a draft about how multiple encapsulations are to be treated and discuss it > out since we all know the issue will likely show up in the field. > > sounds fair? > > I'm sorry again I missed it writing the ISIS draft (or rather wrote a > section that we realized only on last fine read seemed overly restrictive) > ... > > > > -- tony > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Tony – > > > > Can I interpret this as meaning you are OK with removing the text about > multiple encapsulations from the IS-IS draft? > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Tony Przygienda [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:56 AM > *To:* Eric C Rosen <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) <[email protected]>; [email protected] list < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04 > > > > +1 Eric's take ... I don't see how we can interpret it/standardize it in > many ways unless we want it to be overly restrictive but in any case I > think a new draft is a good thing. And sigh, we didn't pay enough attention > since the issue seemed "ephemeral" (and arguably, there were many things > more worth aruging to be argued then ;-) but with ether it needs > clarification. The way it slipped me was that while writing the ISIS draft > originally and using the <MT,SD,BML> I thought briefly based on my UML that > it's really <MT,SD,ENC,BML> but then I was thinking "gosh, this is getting > deep and people will probably roll their eyes" ;-) Another principle > slipped, another lesson learned albeit I think this one is pretty harmless. > > > > Question more being: are we ready with the OSPF draft if we leave that > completely open. If I'd be an implementer (or maybe I am ;-) I would have > no issue implementing the ISIS draft in a clear way when computing, without > any ENC explanation I would say @ this point in computaiton "hmm, am I > supposed ignore the TLV because I see encaps I don't understand/support on > this link" or do I install in fast-path just any encapsulation we both > agree on? (Or we could think about e.g. is MPLS preferred over anything > else, i.e. have a predictable ordering which may play a role if someone > wants to debug the network). Or otherwise, yes, we could sya, more than ONE > encap on the link is illegal (but that's not what my UML based on > architecture doc/discussion says ;-) > > > > yes, it's finely carved, yes, IGPs always are ... > > > > --- tony > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Eric C Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > > If some folks think that there needs to be a correction or addition to the > architecture, the best thing to do would be to write a new draft and post > it for discussion. > > This appears to be a substantive technical issue, which is not appropriate > for an erratum. It also doesn't seem appropriate for the IGP drafts. > > > > On 2/13/2018 4:03 AM, Peter Psenak wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > can we add an errata to RFC 8279, instead of adding the text to both IGP > drafts that does not really belong there. > > > thanks, > Peter > > On 13/02/18 08:16 , Tony Przygienda wrote: > > +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) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *Cc:* Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> list <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > *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) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Ice - > > From: IJsbrand Wijnands (iwijnand) > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:58 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> list <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > 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) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Tony Przygienda <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> list <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > 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) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 12:13 PM > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > "[email protected] list <mailto:[email protected]%20list>" > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > 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) > <[email protected] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]%20on%20behalf%20of%c2%[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]%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <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] > <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[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]%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tony Przygienda > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[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]%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <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]> > <mailto:[email protected]%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:[email protected]%3e>] > > *Sent:* Thursday, February 01, > 2018 2:23 AM > > *To:* Toerless Eckert < > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Tony Przygienda > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <mailto:[email protected]>>; Hannes Gredler > > ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>) > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]>>>; > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> list > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]>>>; > > Christian Hopps <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]%0b%C2%A0%20>> > <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] > <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[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]> > <mailto:[email protected]%20%3cmailto:[email protected]%3e>] > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 22, > 2017 6:34 AM > > > > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > > > > Cc: Tony Przygienda; > Hannes Gredler > > ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected]>); > Greg Shepherd; > > > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[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 > > > ... > > [Message clipped] > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
