I think its clear from the discussion there are different opinions on the matter on how to make BIER use the BAR field. The reason for me to support 16 bits is that everybody seemed ok go move forward with an 8bits BAR without a registry, a 16bits BAR does not change anything, its just a bigger field. But at least with 16bits, we can split in Type, Value, and support different use-cases. IMO, pointing to whatever the Unicast underlay is providing is the main use-case, but it allows other ways to do things.
One thing is clear, with just 8bits, it will be very hard to reach an agreement what the registry would look like. If we make it 16bits, we know we can solve multiple use-cases. The main question (I think) is whether we document how a 16bit BAR is carved up now, or we defer that to later. And as I said, since everybody seemed ok with 8bit BAR without a registry, I don’t see why its now different for 16bits. It gives us time to workout exactly how to use it and get input from the WGs. And, of course, the goal is to create a registry for the 16 bits through a new draft! Thx, Ice. > On 15 Feb 2018, at 18:28, Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Greg Shepherd <gjs...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Greg Shepherd <gjs...@gmail.com> wrote: > For the record, there is no SR Registry. There is only an IGP Algo Type > Registry as defined in draft-ietf-ospr-segment-routing-extensions-24 section > 8.5 > > So is that a good idea, having multiple drafts in flight with fields > expecting to have magic couplings to each other while leaving e'thing > "unspecified" to "publish RFCs" while we "decide things later"? > > That was a pivot, but still; there is no reference, there is no coupling. > > Tangental: draft-ietf-ospr-segment-routing-extensions-24 has been around for > a while, and the IGP Algo registry will be tied to this draft and it's fate. > If anyone is expecting to use this registry outside of the scope of this > draft, it would be in their best interest to pull the registry description > out into a separate draft. > > > OK, and I agree that if such a registry is pulled and under a clear charter > of mandating multiple technologies within an independent body then a > discussion starts to make sense and what the size of that should be given > that mandates algorithms over multiple technologies (SR, unicast, mcast, > whatever) and implies a "God's eye view" of all the elements of all the > technologies (and if a computation touches elements from two technologies > they become [optionally] coupled). We are not talking IGP registry or > multicast computation registry or SR registry then but a "wider scope > registry". Yes, that is an intriguing thought with its own validity but > outside the scope of charter we're under as BIER. Personally, I consider > multiple, if needed loosely coupled registries for each technology a less > centralized and hence "more Internet like" solution but I see how opinions on > such a thing can diverge ... > > thanks > > --- tony > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
